On 10/06/2025 9:10 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.06.2025 21:49, dm...@proton.me wrote:
>> From: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com>
>>
>> Group all pbuf-related data structures under domain's console field.
> Fine with me in principle, as I was indeed wondering about the lack of
> grouping when the sub-struct was introduced, but ...
>
>> @@ -654,6 +648,12 @@ struct domain
>>
>> /* Console settings. */
>> struct {
>> + /* hvm_print_line() and guest_console_write() logging. */
>> +#define DOMAIN_PBUF_SIZE 200
>> + char *pbuf;
>> + unsigned int pbuf_idx;
>> + spinlock_t pbuf_lock;
>> +
>> /* Permission to take ownership of the physical console input. */
>> bool input_allowed;
>> } console;
> ... since all uses of the fields need touching anyway, can we perhaps
> think of giving the fields better names? I never understood what the
> 'p' in "pbuf" actually stands for, for example.
I always assumed it was Hungarian notation, so pointer.
As it's namespaced within .console, plain .buf, .idx and .lock names
work fine.
Separately, 200 is a silly and arbitrary number. Furthermore the
allocation is unconditional, despite the fact that in !VERSBOSE builds,
domUs can't use this facility. Also, where's the input buffer?
~Andrew
