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

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/23/2014 05:13 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>     >>> On 23.09.14 at 16:00, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>     > On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>     >>>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto: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?
> 
>     I'd be fine with that name provided the != above gets converted
>     to a == XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE_INTROSPECTION.
> 
>     Jan
> 
> 
> My problem with this name is that introspection is really way too
> generic of a term. You can certainly do all sorts of introspection
> without having this feature or using this feature.. Ultimately its just
> a name so if this becomes Xen's terminology to mean this particular
> feature I'm fine with it but that's going to be confusing when other
> people talk about 'introspection'.

"Introspection" in general, yes, is a bit generic. However, the
"MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS" part of
XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE_INTROSPECTION, and the "p2m_" part
of "p2m_set_up_introspection()" would, I think, narrow it down a bit more.

But it is, of course, ultimately up to you (and the Xen maintainers). It
was merely a suggestion.


Regards,
Razvan Cojocaru

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