Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/monitor: add get_capabilities to monitor_op domctl

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.07.15 at 14:01, <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On 07.07.15 at 02:43, <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/monitor.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/monitor.c
>> > @@ -42,6 +42,22 @@ int status_check(struct xen_domctl_monitor_op *mop,
>> bool_t status)
>> >      return 0;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +static inline
>> > +void get_capabilities(struct domain *d, struct xen_domctl_monitor_op
>> *mop)
>> > +{
>> > +    mop->event = 0;
>> > +
>> > +    if ( !is_hvm_domain(d) || !cpu_has_vmx )
>> > +        return;
>> > +
>> > +    mop->event = (1 << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_WRITE_CTRLREG) |
>> > +                 (1 << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_MOV_TO_MSR) |
>> > +                 (1 << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_SOFTWARE_BREAKPOINT);
>> > +
>> > +    if ( hvm_is_singlestep_supported() )
>> > +        mop->event |= (1 << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_SINGLESTEP);
>> > +}
>>
>> And with this in mind I suppose the hook then would return a bit
>> mask to be or-ed in here, instead of just a boolean flag.
>>
> 
> I think the boolean flag return is a lot more generic. I rather keep it as
> is - otherwise I have to mask the bitfield again in the toggle patch too.

With the other patch in mind I agree.

Jan


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