[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v16 01/10] x86: add generic resource (e.g. MSR) access hypercall
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:40:08PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 25.09.14 at 12:19, <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + if ( ret ) > > + break; > > + > > + if ( copy_to_guest_offset(ra->data, i, &data, 1) ) > > As said (I think multiple times) before, considering the earlier > copy-in this should be __copy_to_guest_offset(). Agree, this can be optimized. > > > + case XENPF_resource_op: > > + { > > + struct xen_resource_access ra; > > + struct xenpf_resource_op *rsc_op = &op->u.resource_op; > > + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > This variable is used just once and hence not warranted. Sure, will call it in place. > > > + > > + ra.nr = rsc_op->nr; > > Apart from the missing upper bound check I think you also ought > to drop out (successfully, but without causing any IPIs) when the > count is zero. And with you needing to move the copy-in of the > array here too, doing some of the error checking here without > sending IPIs might be worthwhile too. NP. > > > --- a/xen/include/xlat.lst > > +++ b/xen/include/xlat.lst > > @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@ > > ? xenpf_enter_acpi_sleep platform.h > > ? xenpf_pcpuinfo platform.h > > ? xenpf_pcpu_version platform.h > > +? xenpf_resource_op platform.h > > +? xenpf_resource_data platform.h > > Alphabetically please. But then again - why is _op being put here > anyway? I realize there are a number of bad examples in the > compat wrapper source file, but we shouldn't extend this (and > you only put a check for _data there anyway). yes, _op should be dropped here. > > Jan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |