[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 2/5] sysctl: Add sysctl interface for querying PCI topology
On 04/24/2015 03:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.04.15 at 00:20, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 04/21/2015 03:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:+ ((++dev_cnt > 0x3f) && hypercall_preempt_check()) ) + break; + } + + if ( (!ret || (ret == -ENODEV)) && + __copy_field_to_guest(u_sysctl, op, u.pcitopoinfo.first_dev) ) + ret = -EFAULT; + } + break; +#endifWith the continuation-less model now used I don't think it makes sense to have first_dev and num_devs - for re-invocation all the caller needs to do is increment the buffer pointer suitably. I.e. you can get away with just a count of devices afaict.This would require walking xc_hypercall_buffer_t->hbuf. Would something like set_xen_guest_handle_raw(sysctl..., (void *)HYPERCALL_BUFFER_AS_ARG(foo) + offset) be acceptable? I don't think I see anything better. I thought of adding set_xen_guest_handle_offset() that would look similar to set_xen_guest_handle() but then I felt that having this in API may not be a good idea since xc_hypercall_buffer_t->hbuf would end up pointing to memory that is not allocated for full xc_hypercall_buffer_t->sz.There ought to be a way to create a guest handle from other than the start of an allocated hypercall buffer, but that's really more a question for the tool stack folks. Yes, this was question for toolstack people.(And my second paragraph was not stated correctly, now that I re-read it. I meant to say that my understanding is that API is expected to make all safety checks on buffers and with set_xen_guest_handle_offset() that I was picturing in my head we could pass in pretty much any pointer. I suppose we could check 'hbuf+offset < sz') -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |