Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v9 04/19] xen: Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to mem_access common

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 24.09.14 at 16:47, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> >>> 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:
>> >> > --- 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?
>>
>> Actually (correcting my earlier reply) I think together with the missed
>> Cc-s on both v9 patches, re-sending would be desirable, in which
>> case the cosmetic change above should be done at once.
> 
> According to get_maintainer I only missed Tim from the original cc list. I
> don't want to spam other maintainers with just these updates, so do you see
> anyone else that should be on this?

IanC as another ARM maintainer? (And Tim is really kind of important
to Cc here.)

Jan


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