Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v8 04/19] xen: Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to mem_access common

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to common and abstract the new
> p2m_mem_event_emulate_check into the p2m layer to.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> v8: Abstract p2m_mem_event_emulate_check.

This is a pretty big change compared to the size of this patch, so
retaining the ack wasn't really appropriate. That's even more so
because you didn't even retain previous behavior:

> +void p2m_mem_event_emulate_check(struct domain *d, const 
> mem_event_response_t *rsp)
> +{
> +    /* Mark vcpu for skipping one instruction upon rescheduling. */
> +    if ( rsp->flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE )
> +    {
> +        struct vcpu *v = current;

Compare this with ...

> -void p2m_mem_access_resume(struct domain *d)
> -{
> -    mem_event_response_t rsp;
> -
> -    /* Pull all responses off the ring */
> -    while( mem_event_get_response(d, &d->mem_event->access, &rsp) )
> -    {
> -        struct vcpu *v;
> -
> -        if ( rsp.flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_DUMMY )
> -            continue;
> -
> -        /* Validate the vcpu_id in the response. */
> -        if ( (rsp.vcpu_id >= d->max_vcpus) || !d->vcpu[rsp.vcpu_id] )
> -            continue;
> -
> -        v = d->vcpu[rsp.vcpu_id];

... the original code. I.e. you should pass v instead of d into
p2m_mem_event_emulate_check().

Jan


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