> -----Original Message----- > From: George Dunlap [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 10 July 2018 14:20 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; George Dunlap > <[email protected]>; Ian Jackson <[email protected]>; Jan > Beulich <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Konrad > Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini > <[email protected]>; Tim (Xen.org) <[email protected]>; Wei Liu > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] grant_table: use term 'mfn' for machine frame > numbers... > > On 07/07/2018 12:05 PM, Paul Durrant wrote: > > ...rather than more ambiguous term 'frame'. > > > > There are many places in the grant table code that use a variable or > > field name '.*frame' to refer to a quantity that is strictly an MFN, and > > even has type mfn_t. > > This patch is a purely cosmetic patch that substitutes 'frame' with 'mfn' > > in those places to make the purpose of the variable or field name more > > obvious. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> > > Looks good. One minor comment... > > > @@ -2320,7 +2320,7 @@ release_grant_for_copy( > > struct grant_table *rgt = rd->grant_table; > > grant_entry_header_t *sha; > > struct active_grant_entry *act; > > - mfn_t r_frame; > > + mfn_t mfn; > > uint16_t *status; > > grant_ref_t trans_gref; > > struct domain *td; > > If you end up respinning this, you might consider making this 'rmfn' or > somethign, just because everything in this function seems to have the > 'r' prefix. >
I looked again and TBH I'd prefer to just stick with mfn. > But either way: > > Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <[email protected]> Thanks, Paul _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
