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