Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v12 15/21] pvh: Set up more PV stuff in set_info_guest

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/09/13 15:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 20.09.13 at 16:50, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 18/09/13 16:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 13.09.13 at 18:25, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +int vmx_pvh_vcpu_boot_set_info(struct vcpu *v,
> > > > +                               struct vcpu_guest_context *ctxtp)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    if ( ctxtp->ldt_base || ctxtp->ldt_ents ||
> > > > +         ctxtp->user_regs.cs || ctxtp->user_regs.ss || ctxtp->user_regs.es ||
> > > > +         ctxtp->user_regs.ds || ctxtp->user_regs.fs || ctxtp->user_regs.gs ||
> > > > +         *ctxtp->gdt_frames || ctxtp->gdt_ents ||
> > > Don't know why I didn't spot this earlier, but the gdt_frames check
> > > is pointless when gdt_ents is verified to be zero.
> > You know, looking at this again -- is there a reason we can't just put
> > this in hvm_set_info_guest()?  It's already only called from that one
> > place, only a few lines before.  There doesn't really seem to be a need
> > to have yet another function for just a few lines.
> Indeed - only the VMX specific piece belongs here; everything
> else should be in the generic wrapper (which perhaps then
> won't be a simple wrapper anymore).
Or, we could do like is done for pv, and put the validity checks at the 
top of arch_set_info_guest().  I think I like that option the best.
 -George


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