On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 18:17 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
> @@ -504,17 +508,15 @@ unsigned long mfn_to_gmfn(struct domain
> mfn < (rma_mfn + (1 << d->arch.rma_order)))
> return mfn - rma_mfn;
>
> - /* Extent? */
> - cur_pfn = 1UL << d->arch.rma_order;
> - list_for_each_entry (pe, &d->arch.extent_list, pe_list) {
> - uint pe_pages = 1UL << pe->order;
> - uint b_mfn = page_to_mfn(pe->pg);
> - uint e_mfn = b_mfn + pe_pages;
> -
> - if (mfn >= b_mfn && mfn < e_mfn) {
> + /* check extents (cpu-defined contiguous chunks after RMA) */
> + cur_pfn = 1UL << d->arch.rma_order; /* start looking after RMA */
> + for ( ; cur_pfn < d->max_pages; cur_pfn += ext_nrpages )
> + {
> + uint b_mfn = d->arch.p2m[cur_pfn];
> + uint e_mfn = b_mfn + ext_nrpages;
> +
> + if (mfn >= b_mfn && mfn < e_mfn)
> return cur_pfn + (mfn - b_mfn);
> - }
> - cur_pfn += pe_pages;
> }
> return INVALID_M2P_ENTRY;
> }
I think you're splitting these patches up a lot more than necessary (to
the point I've having a hard time understanding them). Also, the above
code is just removed by the next patch! If you combine 4 and 5 I think
it will actually be smaller and easier to understand.
I didn't realize these were just RFC. When you resubmit, could you put a
little more description in each commit message?
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel
