[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 28/34] x86/vm_event: put vm_event_fill_regs under CONFIG_HVM
On 8/21/18 1:45 PM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 07:41:11PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >> On 8/17/18 6:12 PM, Wei Liu wrote: >>> Ideally the HVM specific part of VM event should be moved into hvm/ at >>> some point, but this will do for now. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c b/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c >>> index f91aade..b4f6afb 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c >>> @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ void vm_event_monitor_next_interrupt(struct vcpu *v) >>> >>> void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req) >>> { >>> +#if CONFIG_HVM >>> const struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs(); >>> struct segment_register seg; >>> struct hvm_hw_cpu ctxt; >>> @@ -177,6 +178,7 @@ void vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req) >>> >>> hvm_get_segment_register(curr, x86_seg_cs, &seg); >>> req->data.regs.x86.cs_arbytes = seg.attr; >>> +#endif >>> } >> >> Some registers can be obtained here without using HVM-specific code, >> unless I'm misunderstanding how it works. So I wonder if it wouldn't be >> better to put only the "struct hvm_hw_cpu ctxt;"-related code under >> CONFIG_HVM - that way what can be queried via guest_cpu_user_regs() >> alone won't be lost. >> > > But there is an assertion for is_hvm_vcpu at the beginning of the > function, that's how I got the impression that function is supposed to > be HVM only. Do you want me to remove that ASSERT too? At the moment it only make sense for HVM, but since that assert this comment appeared in include/asm-x86/monitor.h: 73 /* 74 * At the moment only Intel and AMD HVM domains are supported. However, 75 * event delivery could be extended to PV domains. 76 */ and there has been an (unsuccessful) series to add vm_events to PV domains: https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-07/msg01010.html That's what I had in mind when I said that not everything there is tied to HVM. However, we have no current plans to extend mem_access to PV and the function does indeed only makes sense for HVM domains at the moment, so unless Tamas or other maintainers have something against your changes I suppose we don't need to anticipate PV support yet. So, Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |