[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 5/9] xen: Support for VMCALL mem_events
On 07/03/2014 09:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 02.07.14 at 18:23, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/02/2014 07:11 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 02.07.14 at 17:54, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> --- a/xen/include/public/hvm/params.h >>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/public/hvm/params.h >>>>>> @@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ >>>>>> #define HVM_PARAM_IOREQ_SERVER_PFN 32 >>>>>> #define HVM_PARAM_NR_IOREQ_SERVER_PAGES 33 >>>>>> >>>>>> -#define HVM_NR_PARAMS 34 >>>>>> +#define HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_VMCALL 34 >>>>> >>>>> So why does this (used only as an argument to >>>>> hvm_memory_event_traps()) need to be settable? I guess the patch >>>>> description is just too brief. >>>> >>>> Settable? >>> >>> You must have a reason to make this a HVM param. That reason is >>> what I'm asking for. >> >> I see. I want to be able to enable / disable this type of events. I.e.: >> >> if (flags & ENABLE_VMCALL) >> xc_set_hvm_param(xci, domain, HVM_PARAM_MEMORY_EVENT_VMCALL, >> HVMPME_mode_sync); >> >> from the application, via libxc. > > But hvm_memory_event_vmcall() simply uses the value, whether or > not it got set. And if the receiver of the event has to anyway deal > with instances it didn't enable, then it needs to do filtering anyway, > and hence there's little point in making configurable the exact value > being passed back up. You're right, I see your point. I'll either handle it in do_hvm_op() as well or remove it completely. Thanks, Razvan Cojocaru _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |