Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v8 06/19] xen: Relocate mem_event_op domctl and access_op memop into common.

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/mem_event.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/mem_event.c
>> @@ -623,12 +623,9 @@ int mem_event_domctl(struct domain *d,
>> xen_domctl_mem_event_op_t *mec,
>>                                      HVM_PARAM_ACCESS_RING_PFN,
>>                                      mem_access_notification);
>>
>> -            if ( mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE &&
>> -                 rc == 0 && hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception )
>> -            {
>> -                d->arch.hvm_domain.introspection_enabled = 1;
>> -                hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
>> -            }
>> +            if ( !rc && mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE )
>> +                p2m_enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
>
> The name is clearly not suitable for an abstraction - there's certainly
> not going to be MSRs on each and every CPU architecture. Maybe
> consult with Razvan on an agreeable more suitable name.

P2m_set_up_introspection() perhaps? With the MSR HVM code where
applicable, nothing (or something else) where not? Would this be too
generic?

Yes, I think its too generic of a name (which IMHO applies to the boolean on the hvm_domain as well, introspection_enabled). I don't know what would be an adequate name for this really.

Tamas

 

Regards,
Razvan Cojocaru

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

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