[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 15/15] tools/xen-access: altp2m testcases
- To: "Lengyel, Tamas" <tlengyel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ed White <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:06:22 +0300
- Cc: Ravi Sahita <ravi.sahita@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Delivery-date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:06:54 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=oolvoEW60EZk4ctsQwLFqrJljoOuCm3CsZlFM2TT3j+BuPX8H58N1QogoVB6H8ratJ8UhtO5GnQCk89ncOJYS49jaijVa0QdRMo7TkhR8PA2KHbG/s39SpZ9T0aqwbsOG46N6LJP97xA/XIakdFsN5mArEkKXTEDz+9B4t937ITAyaj6JV2NalL888Vij+NnxYFU1z0m9ydI91k4y7SkF6mGJtGcQuh4AHptrzJW/u7FfjHiLYbFqbmbQ3MQy6/TifpNEESxZvDWd1oJR4TrrDdGxeChncj7kxStlzvX9CBj2BK0g7DbUpOk0xh4FrNqkisIlnO09wrEnC6nlKYMiw==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 07/10/2015 04:35 AM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
>
> @@ -546,6 +652,23 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> }
>
> break;
> + case VM_EVENT_REASON_SINGLESTEP:
> + printf("Singlestep: rip=%016"PRIx64", vcpu %d\n",
> + req.regs.x86.rip,
> + req.vcpu_id);
> +
> + if ( altp2m )
> + {
> + printf("\tSwitching altp2m to view %u!\n",
> altp2m_view_id);
> +
> + rsp.reason = VM_EVENT_REASON_MEM_ACCESS;
>
>
> So this was a workaround for v3 of the series that is no longer
> necessary - it's probably cleaner to have the same reason set for the
> response as the request was. It's not against any rule, so the code is
> still correct and works, it's just not best practice. So in case there
> is another round on the series, it could be fixed then.
With or without that change (but preferably with it):
Reviewed-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|