* Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-22 16:20]:
> 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.
OK
>
> I didn't realize these were just RFC. When you resubmit, could you put a
> little more description in each commit message?
Yeah, I should have put RFC in the subject. I'll expand the
descriptions in the patches as well.
--
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel
