Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 01/19] common/symbols: Export hypervisor symbols to privileged guest

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/16/2014 11:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 16.05.14 at 16:58, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 05/16/2014 04:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > Considering that xensyms_read() is there only to implement this sub-
> > > hypercall, I wonder whether you wouldn't be better of passing it the
> > > handle, and have it do the copying. It's holding a lock itself, so the
> > > static buffer could be placed there, along with the other statics it
> > > already uses (which btw should go into the only function that make
> > > use of them).
> > I didn't want to expose xensyms_read() to any handles to keep it a
> > purely "internal" (for the lack of a better term) routine.
> >
> > But if 'name' is to become static I don't want to introduce another lock
> > (or move existing one up from xensyms_read()) so I guess I would have to
> > pass the handle.
> No, even in the caller you're already protected by a lock.

Ah, yes. Then I should be able to simply make 'name' static in 
do_platform_op().

> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/platform_hypercall.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/platform_hypercall.c
> > > > @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ CHECK_pf_pcpu_version;
> > > >    CHECK_pf_enter_acpi_sleep;
> > > >    #undef xen_pf_enter_acpi_sleep
> > > >    
> > > > +#define xenpf_symdata   compat_pf_symdata
> > > Did you check that you really need this? There's no explicit instance of
> > > the structure, so I would think it's not needed.
> > Isn't this required for auto-building compat interfaces?
> That depends, and it seems to me that it's not needed here.
OK, I'll see if I really need it.

-boris


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel