On 09/12/2018 10:15 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 12.09.18 at 11:10, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-boun...@lists.xenproject.org] On Behalf >>> Of Jan Beulich >>> Sent: 11 September 2018 15:56 >>> >>>>>> On 23.08.18 at 11:47, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> ...for some uses of get_page_from_gfn(). >>>> >>>> There are many occurences of the following pattern in the code: >>>> >>>> q = <readonly look-up> ? P2M_ALLOC : P2M_UNSHARE; >>> >>> Especially with this UNSHARE in mind - is "paged" in the helper >>> function's name really suitable? Since we (I think) already have >>> get_gfn(), how about try_get_gfn()? >> >> That name may be a little misleading since it suggests a close functional >> relationship with get_gfn() whereas it does more than that. How about >> try_get_page_from_gfn()? > > Fine with me; George?
At the risk of bike shedding.. "try" to me means only pass/fail, with no side effects, and with no permissions checks. What about "check_and_get_page_from_gfn()"? I'd prefer 'check' but if anyone objects I'd rather just go with 'try' and get things in -- the code is a definite improvement. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
