[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v9 04/19] xen: Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to mem_access common
>>> On 24.09.14 at 15:05, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> On 24.09.14 at 11:09, <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> >> > --- >> > v9: Pass the vcpu instead of the domain to emulate_check. >> >> Is it correct that you resent just patches 4 and 6 as v9? >> > > I didn't want to resend the entire 19 set series for just these two updates. Which is fine I guess, I just wanted to double check. >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >> > @@ -1382,6 +1382,60 @@ static void >> p2m_mem_event_fill_regs(mem_event_request_t *req) >> > req->x86_regs.cs_arbytes = seg.attr.bytes; >> > } >> > >> > +void p2m_mem_event_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v, const >> mem_event_response_t *rsp) >> > +{ >> > + /* Mark vcpu for skipping one instruction upon rescheduling. */ >> > + if ( rsp->flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE ) >> > + { >> > + struct domain *d = v->domain; >> > + xenmem_access_t access; >> > + bool_t violation = 1; >> > + >> > + if ( p2m_get_mem_access(d, rsp->gfn, &access) == 0 ) >> >> While it's certainly not wrong, I personally dislike such single use >> local variables - you could easily (and without hampering readability) >> pass v->domain here. >> > > Certainly. Does it worth another resend? Probably not if no other need for resending arises. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |