[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 07/17] libxc/restore: STATIC_DATA_END inference for v2 compatibility

  • To: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:43:43 +0100
  • Authentication-results: esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:43:56 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: Vs99ILpszvDFV58HEgzvm8EoKyhLoxYsYgjGc/fF6b1dzZ3cdmsuFAPoEReDmFDShCOqoqUDl9 yQVU8mckMmSuanAcuOvbdowooT4Gv5OXceD8p5QT3b9Dy8wgzgUpSQDKQ7tJr9IbiDiTDXzjTE BNQctFsFKb5RmiSZGXV+sc7Rlze2DzuX+/26U7L6XNQZhzxLtkCkYwF+5p1cpKH5OzI7j69ork ecdVctcqNnymtGOjIFhgikX6pPeegp4l5bQ8OrJltrxUN9tPo32R79d8GlAWFk34Y+m6XgDMjy hJ4=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 05/03/2020 16:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 07/17] libxc/restore: STATIC_DATA_END 
> inference for v2 compatibility"):
>> On 24/02/2020 17:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> These 17 lines appears twice, in basically identical form.  Could it
>>> be refactored ?
>> Not really, no.
>> The error handling (i.e. half of those 17 lines) is different, making it
>> somewhat awkward to fit into a static inline.
> You could handle that with a small bit of code around one of the call
> sites to adjust the error handling.  (Also, what a mess, but I guess
> we're here now...)

... which is the majority the code you're trying to abstract away.

>> More importantly however, by design, common code can't call
>> arch-specific code without a restore_ops hook.  Deduping these would
>> require breaking the restriction which is currently doing a decent job
>> of keeping x86-isms out of common code.
> I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that to me at a bit greater
> length.  The biggest thing that is confusing me about your statement
> here is that your patch is indeed adding x86-specific code to a common
> file.  But also I don't understand the comment about restore_ops
> hooks - do you mean something in restore_callbacks ?

No.  restore_callbacks are plumbing between libxl-save-helper and libxc.

restore_ops are internal to the restore code, and come in x86_pv and
x86_hvm flavours, with ARM existing in some theoretical future.  The
design of the common save/restore code had deliberate measures put in
place to make it hard to get arch-specific details slip into common
code, so porting to different architectures didn't have to start by
doing a bunch of cleanup.

tl;dr I could put an #ifdef x86'd static inline in the root common
header (xc_sr_common.h), but the overall complexity is greater than what
is presented here.




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.