On 12.06.2025 12:51, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> 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?
Yes, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Jan
