Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU-XEN v6 4/8] xen: Switch uses of xc_map_foreign_range into xc_map_foreign_pages

[Ian Campbell]

On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 14:26 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 11:23 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > diff --git a/hw/display/xenfb.c b/hw/display/xenfb.c
> > > index 5e324ef..c96d974 100644
> > > --- a/hw/display/xenfb.c
> > > +++ b/hw/display/xenfb.c
> > > @@ -104,9 +104,8 @@ static int common_bind(struct common *c)
> > >      if (xenstore_read_fe_int(&c->xendev, "event-channel", &c-
> > > >xendev.remote_port) == -1)
> > >   return -1;
> > >  
> > > -    c->page = xc_map_foreign_range(xen_xc, c->xendev.dom,
> > > -                            XC_PAGE_SIZE,
> > > -                            PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, mfn);
> > > +    c->page = xc_map_foreign_pages(xen_xc, c->xendev.dom,
> > > +                                   PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, &mfn, 1);
> > 
> > This doesn't build for i386 userspace, since mfn is a uint64_t but
> > xc_map_foreign_pages() wants a xen_pfn_t * (where xen_pfn_t == unsigned
> > long on x86).
> > 
> > Until now that was just a truncation which was already checked for
> > with:
> > 
> >     uint64_t mfn;
> > 
> >     if (xenstore_read_fe_uint64(&c->xendev, "page-ref", &mfn) == -1)
> >         return -1;
> >     assert(mfn == (xen_pfn_t)mfn);
> > 
> > I think in principal passing "(xen_pfn_t *)&mfn" would ok (since it is
> > a
> > singleton array in this case), but I was thinking of going a bit
> > further
> > and:
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/display/xenfb.c b/hw/display/xenfb.c
> > index 8b86b4a..54585fa 100644
> > --- a/hw/display/xenfb.c
> > +++ b/hw/display/xenfb.c
> > @@ -95,11 +95,13 @@ struct XenFB {
> >  
> >  static int common_bind(struct common *c)
> >  {
> > -    uint64_t mfn;
> > +    uint64_t val;
> > +    xen_pfn_t mfn;
> >  
> > -    if (xenstore_read_fe_uint64(&c->xendev, "page-ref", &mfn) == -1)
> > +    if (xenstore_read_fe_uint64(&c->xendev, "page-ref", &val) == -1)
> >     return -1;
> > -    assert(mfn == (xen_pfn_t)mfn);
> > +    mfn = (xen_pfn_t)val;
> > +    assert(val == mfn);
> >  
> >      if (xenstore_read_fe_int(&c->xendev, "event-channel", &c-
> > >xendev.remote_port) == -1)
> >     return -1;
> > 
> > Stefano, what do you think/prefer? An alternative to the above
> 
> I like this change because it makes the code more obvious

Thanks, with that change may I keep your Reviewed-by?