On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:36:36AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.06.2025 19:16, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > @@ -80,6 +81,39 @@ unsigned long get_max_pfn(unsigned long top_pfn)
> > return pdx_to_pfn(pdx - 1) + 1;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_PDX_NONE
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > +# include <asm/e820.h>
> > +# define MAX_PFN_RANGES E820MAX
> > +#elif defined(CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE)
> > +# include <xen/bootfdt.h>
> > +# define MAX_PFN_RANGES NR_MEM_BANKS
> > +#else
> > +# error "Missing architecture maximum number of RAM ranges"
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +/* Generic PFN compression helpers. */
> > +static struct pfn_range {
> > + unsigned long base, size;
> > +} ranges[MAX_PFN_RANGES] __initdata;
> > +static unsigned int __initdata nr;
>
> One other remark / nit: For my taste, "nr" isn't a suitable name for a static.
> It's too short, and hence the risk is too high that some function would add a
> local aliasing this one.
Is nr_ranges enough to avoid aliasing? Otherwise I could rename
ranges to pfn_ranges, and nr to nr_pfn_ranges.
Thanks, Roger.
