[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v2 2/5] xen: export get_free_port
- To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:09:01 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=h4CfLYkZCgQ2re1mVcjg9UU+1Pzuy7M47xgaksVvZBs=; b=T/hVg58KPy3kobQC9r69WvHNj02mibY7MmcmaHjlad1ic761IAQq1SdliQWau79ssPCWT5UUpQoxKff59wSAP7Gd8q01IeM3RQo8QlnUaxFAqgxGHyME0LH5mj30hQzeYd099MK9z0ea4D5Pnn++g67YCCgxf0s3hsbrzXXIGGYUH7nFpjPV3rXdCdyjuSJvUemHZyros/JQr2nbNwzyKsHJEqrEyVinm5QC7a9bd+6DsC1Jjq9VYD6aGyslqSBYSUNaJN06Pj0CfsynMWkWc0dCWkuxbAIP1jK6iCHiWvYmF84vp6DRv4dubA5fouTqBaOzr9cY4JOt4/2PeiVKjQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=RYRO47sUWVRvp/W5Kv1Fw5YhuNmDdCsnwV7NUxXILrTC/UNGr7x6T7tf3h6KFOGEKcyJowY4jVcHcs8WnkDFwjzwEcXtnJW8EjhlJCtAxH7IUsVpOyg8UeLeHuovEL33s6vh+DCE+iC6BditZYQKTx22tt9Jry+Bsnvs+13w8X4Nym/6xVB7B8cm5FC5WdO+iiKLdRKGdDMql7i47V/fiOcBOB1WsQYBGXcuB4k8hxgozxRU87aBpby1dqqWygN8r4dL1BYuKDaSgDPy7tDZXeWzDb9cEGKhkZJhlf9ADfd+jCABUeGEtfKRxDqvBYXkU6D8ImoiKYt4GY2pL4exMQ==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgross@xxxxxxxx, Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx, Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 07:09:09 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 28.01.2022 02:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/event_channel.c
> +++ b/xen/common/event_channel.c
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ void evtchn_free(struct domain *d, struct evtchn *chn)
> xsm_evtchn_close_post(chn);
> }
>
> -static int evtchn_alloc_unbound(evtchn_alloc_unbound_t *alloc)
> +int evtchn_alloc_unbound(evtchn_alloc_unbound_t *alloc, bool disable_xsm)
Nit: I don't think "disable" expresses the behavior. May I suggest "skip" or
"bypass" or some such? Or invert the boolean and name it "check_xsm" or even
simply "xsm"?
Jan
|
