[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v8 06/19] xen: Relocate mem_event_op domctl and access_op memop into common.


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:00:47 +0300
  • Cc: ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, tim@xxxxxxx, julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:00:53 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=jH/fCClT/9NdNdG6jk6H9H3AVlcFG/yvcJjXHou9+wzfNMqANC0NStRDudbVWRq8xyroS9qsgRf0Z0q5JrO1GahbBTpJR6eb0mdx0xE0snpTL9SCvZaf6czFswXqAC3qGAMp7Ojq6Tts+W77hKa/uVlKFpFPUsFx/4nmBVAbBlE2s/OOaNZU45HGXlo4haSMXSbI8qnrLzeFxo0Dz1DtE3H+rjZ35KM8fIR5GTxCyXHotdmY02hydj5YyMfbDRDmnZ70afthykbgNgGQ20K0pgcXZNFZ8xHIHH3ysSK/G8vsOlRsjvIe+xpj26FcUMq2qNmF85Po2G0bincLeiVsLA==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/mem_event.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/mem_event.c
>> @@ -623,12 +623,9 @@ int mem_event_domctl(struct domain *d, 
>> xen_domctl_mem_event_op_t *mec,
>>                                      HVM_PARAM_ACCESS_RING_PFN,
>>                                      mem_access_notification);
>>  
>> -            if ( mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE &&
>> -                 rc == 0 && hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception )
>> -            {
>> -                d->arch.hvm_domain.introspection_enabled = 1;
>> -                hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
>> -            }
>> +            if ( !rc && mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE )
>> +                p2m_enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
> 
> The name is clearly not suitable for an abstraction - there's certainly
> not going to be MSRs on each and every CPU architecture. Maybe
> consult with Razvan on an agreeable more suitable name.

P2m_set_up_introspection() perhaps? With the MSR HVM code where
applicable, nothing (or something else) where not? Would this be too
generic?


Regards,
Razvan Cojocaru

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.