[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


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:29:14 +0300
  • Cc: tim@xxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:29:04 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=ZsYwSMaztXWmH2kIDP+Dq+F7QBwEfDrTnwzFMZaiCdLrZgW4KVq3mzxGdsLMGs4xDQCHgtrRJkWEycg7WO7NK4VcAcGrJG4yWyxqctJ81y/uQut35N0lHrPxIqHdk5CxQAy9saZFTHLvgFbNlyd6wGiGoJoBxZXQsGBA5C28ZG2x17rGk5hjHEHwefzaWKXgMMsm8qo6QptRRWtykyP0G4XIH0RLKo4+w1TrV7ZVR4/IhylcH//KZti6nxobjYuUyi/D305kW2dEfAsMORbWTHkHKrn83PFCiyuAmQfK7o+DFbhxanaNMb+HpQnLcv+Jhd6zNquubWYaMZaddfjmFQ==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

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


 


Rackspace

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