Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] hvm/svm: Implement Debug events

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 20.03.18 at 17:14, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/03/18 16:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 20.03.18 at 16:53, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Please could you delete this function and use:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
>>> index 2376ed6..843dafe 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
>>> @@ -407,6 +407,19 @@ void hvm_migrate_pirqs(struct vcpu *v);
>>>  
>>>  void hvm_inject_event(const struct x86_event *event);
>>>  
>>> +static inline void hvm_inject_exception(
>>> +    unsigned int vector, unsigned int type, unsigned int insn_len)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct x86_event event = {
>>> +        .vector = vector,
>>> +        .type = type,
>>> +        .insn_len = insn_len,
>>> +        .error_code = X86_EVENT_NO_EC,
>>> +    };
>>> +
>>> +    hvm_inject_event(&event);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static inline void hvm_inject_hw_exception(unsigned int vector, int 
>>> errcode)
>>>  {
>>>      struct x86_event event = {
>>>
>>> as a new common helper.  (I'm not terribly happy with the name, but I
>>> can't think of a better alternative, seeing as it is needed for both
>>> software and hardware exceptions.)
>> We'll need some better name though - "exception" together with
>> an unconditional X86_EVENT_NO_EC is not really a reasonable
>> combination.
> 
> Alternatively, keep the current name, extend the parameter list with an
> "int error_code" and have the new callers pass X86_EVENT_NO_EC in?

Fine with me.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel