Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 11/13] x86/altp2m: define and implement alternate p2m HVMOP types.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 06.07.15 at 12:09, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/07/15 19:09, Ed White wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Ed White <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I am still very much unconvinced by the argument against having a single
> HVMOP_altp2m and a set of subops.  do_domctl() and do_sysctl() are
> examples of a subop style hypercall with different XSM settings for
> different subops.

+1

>> +    case HVMOP_altp2m_vcpu_enable_notify:
>> +    {
>> +        struct domain *curr_d = current->domain;
>> +        struct vcpu *curr = current;
>> +        struct xen_hvm_altp2m_vcpu_enable_notify a;
>> +        p2m_type_t p2mt;
>> +
>> +        if ( copy_from_guest(&a, arg, 1) )
>> +            return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> +        if ( !is_hvm_domain(curr_d) || !hvm_altp2m_supported() ||
>> +             !curr_d->arch.altp2m_active ||
>> +             gfn_x(vcpu_altp2m(curr).veinfo_gfn) != INVALID_GFN)
> 
> Brackets around the boolean operation on this line, and a space inside
> the final bracket.

The latter is a requirement, while the former really is optional.

Jan


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