Xen project Mailing List

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

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> 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

My problem with this name is that introspection is really way too generic of a term. You can certainly do all sorts of introspection without having this feature or using this feature.. Ultimately its just a name so if this becomes Xen's terminology to mean this particular feature I'm fine with it but that's going to be confusing when other people talk about 'introspection'.

Tamas

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