On 28/07/15 16:02, Julien Grall wrote: > Based on include/xen/mm.h [1], Linux is mistakenly using MFN when GFN > is meant, I suspect this is because the first support for Xen was for > PV. This brough some misimplementation of helpers on ARM and make the > developper confused the expected behavior. For the benefit of other subsystem maintainers, this is a purely mechanical change in Xen-specific terminology. It doesn't need reviews or acks from non-Xen people (IMO). > For instance, with pfn_to_mfn, we expect to get an MFN based on the name. > Although, if we look at the implementation on x86, it's returning a GFN. > > For clarity and avoid new confusion, replace any reference of mfn into > gnf in any helpers used by PV drivers. > > Take also the opportunity to simplify simple construction such > as pfn_to_mfn(page_to_pfn(page)) into page_to_gfn. More complex clean up > will come in follow-up patches. > > I think it may be possible to do further clean up in the x86 code to > ensure that helpers returning machine address (such as virt_address) is > not used by no auto-translated guests. I will let x86 xen expert doing > it. Reviewed-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> It looks a bit odd to use GFN in some of the PV code where the hypervisor API uses MFN but overall I think using the correct terminology where possible is best. But I'd like to have Boris's or Konrad's opinion on this. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
