Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] x86/HVM: fix forwarding of internally cached requests

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 March 2016 12:02
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Chang Jianzhong; xen-devel; Keir (Xen.org)
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] x86/HVM: fix forwarding of internally cached
> requests
> 
> >>> On 24.03.16 at 12:49, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 24 March 2016 11:29
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> >> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ int hvm_process_io_intercept(const struc
> >>                      ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> >>                      /* fall through */
> >>                  default:
> >> -                    rc = X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
> >> +                    rc = -1; /* != any X86EMUL_* value. */
> >
> > Rather than the need for magic values, couldn't you just goto a
> domain_crash
> > label at the tail of the function?
> > Also, since domain_crash() isn't synchronous, I think you should replace the
> > -1 value with some valid X86EMUL_ value before returning from the
> function.
> 
> Good point, but I guess I'd rather move the domain_crash() right here
> and retain the X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE then. What do you think?
> 

Yes, that's probably better since IIRC domain_crash()  will spit out the line 
number it's invoked from.

  Paul

> Jan


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