|
[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 |