On 06.08.2025 14:01, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>
> On 8/5/25 12:40 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 31.07.2025 17:58, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> @@ -30,3 +34,18 @@ int p2m_init(struct domain *d)
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Set the pool of pages to the required number of pages.
>>> + * Returns 0 for success, non-zero for failure.
>>> + * Call with d->arch.paging.lock held.
>>> + */
>>> +int p2m_set_allocation(struct domain *d, unsigned long pages, bool
>>> *preempted)
>> Noticed only when looking at the subsequent patch: With this being ...
>>
>>> +{
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + if ( (rc = paging_freelist_init(d, pages, preempted)) )
>> ... a caller of this function, the "init" in the name feels wrong.
>
> I thought about paging_freelist_alloc(), but it feels wrong too as it sounds
> like
> freelist is being allocated inside this functions, but what really happens
> that
> pages are allocated and just added/removed to/from freelist.
>
> Maybe something like paging_freelist_resize() or *_adjust() would be better?
Yes; whichever of the two you like better.
Jan
