[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/12] x86/altp2m: add control of suppress_ve.
>>> On 25.06.15 at 18:36, <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/25/2015 01:12 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 24.06.15 at 19:53, <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h >>>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h >>>>> @@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain { >>>>> p2m_access_t *p2ma, >>>>> p2m_query_t q, >>>>> unsigned int *page_order); >>>>> + int (*set_entry_full)(struct p2m_domain *p2m, >>>>> + unsigned long gfn, >>>>> + mfn_t mfn, unsigned int >>> page_order, >>>>> + p2m_type_t p2mt, >>>>> + p2m_access_t p2ma, >>>>> + unsigned int sve); >>>>> + mfn_t (*get_entry_full)(struct p2m_domain *p2m, >>>>> + unsigned long gfn, >>>>> + p2m_type_t *p2mt, >>>>> + p2m_access_t *p2ma, >>>>> + p2m_query_t q, >>>>> + unsigned int *page_order, >>>>> + unsigned int *sve); >>>> >>>> I have to admit that I find the _full suffixes here pretty odd. Based >>>> on the functionality, they should be _sve. But then it seems >>>> questionable how they could be useful to the generic p2m layer >>>> anyway, i.e. why there would need to be such hooks in the first >>>> place. >>> >>> I did originally use _sve suffixes. I changed them because there >>> may be some future case where these routines control some other >>> EPTE bit too. I made them hooks because I thought calling ept... >>> functions directly would be a layering violation. >> >> Indeed it would. But thinking about it more, I would suggest to >> extend the existing accessors rather than adding new ones. >> Just consider what would result when further such return values >> are going to be needed in the future: I don't see us adding >> _fuller, _fullest, etc variants. Perhaps just make the new output >> an optional generic "flags" one. One might even consider folding >> it with order, or even consolidate all the outputs into a single >> structure. > > The new functions are called in 3 places only, so changing them > later would have minimal impact. The existing functions are called > in many, many places. I *really* don't want to go changing the > amount of existing code that doing what you suggest would entail > at this late stage. I continue to think differently (and I don't consider "at this late stage" a particularly relevant argument), but the maintainer will have the final say anyway - George? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |