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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.09.14 at 16:00, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

I'd be fine with that name provided the != above gets converted
to a == XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE_INTROSPECTION.

Jan


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