[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] xen: x86: copy back tsc info, not pointer to tsc info in domctl
On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 14:11 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 26.05.15 at 14:56, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 13:25 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 26.05.15 at 13:14, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c > >> > @@ -856,13 +856,16 @@ long arch_do_domctl( > >> > ret = -EINVAL; > >> > else > >> > { > >> > + xen_guest_tsc_info_t info = { 0 }; > >> > + > >> > domain_pause(d); > >> > - tsc_get_info(d, &domctl->u.tsc_info.info.tsc_mode, > >> > - &domctl->u.tsc_info.info.elapsed_nsec, > >> > - &domctl->u.tsc_info.info.gtsc_khz, > >> > - &domctl->u.tsc_info.info.incarnation); > >> > + tsc_get_info(d, &info.tsc_mode, > >> > + &info.elapsed_nsec, > >> > + &info.gtsc_khz, > >> > + &info.incarnation); > >> > domain_unpause(d); > >> > - copyback = 1; > >> > + if ( copy_to_guest(domctl->u.tsc_info.out_info, &info, 1) ) > >> > + ret = -EFAULT; > >> > } > >> > break; > >> > > >> > >> I have to admit that I don't see the point of this change when patch > >> 2 basically undoes it all. > > > > I thought so at first but the restructuring in the second patch was > > large enough that I didn't want to mix it in with an actual functional > > change. Plus the second patch does more than undo it, it removes "info." > > from the domctl access. > > Hmm, yeah. I guess in that case the fix (patch 1) could have been > to drop out_info, and the cleanup (patch 2) to eliminate struct > xen_guest_tsc_info. But anyway, feel free to commit as is, taking > this as an ack for patch 2 even in its current shape. Done, thanks. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |