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 16:15, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> >>> On 23.09.14 at 16:04, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > +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().
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ah good point, but I think passing d is better (as it is also required
>> > further down), I just have to make v = d->vcpu[rsp.vcpu_id] instead of
>> > current.
>>
>> No - d can simply be had from v->domain.
> 
> Ack. Would you still prefer splitting the abstraction from this patch into
> a separate one?

I don't think there's a need.

Jan


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