[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] ARM: Support for guest-request vm-events

  • To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: CORNELIU ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:36:14 +0200
  • Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:36:22 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=MGxOzInSQ5FFBLsr0g01MXgS46ub76PLIojIerabgTMLSYRnBK33rNkT68U3Iecfb/N+sdScn/uh4I05luh+E2c81nFjvHPwdOo8q11NpSEqy3EOcfjPBmQ+2fo+SlDPz5SQJV5p5XxLADf/7FVbtMkKtQGicJL1oEb3LIfDjGuv7Gox6Sf8+kz2x2mOu1KmYtjb+DzI6iFYbHNkwieZwpB6jXINjObnTh30b4H+iSPRxYwOrcU+resYX752Md6sh/K4pkaqM/oyKeWDMUb2hco7njKiLnvcBT9g4/283PbcKA0CPQ4ymuSpN3diJKAKVhTj/2TAfhJL/rEjCeBWRA==; 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 1/28/2016 1:23 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 13:17 +0200, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
This patch implements ARM support for guest-request vm-events.
The code has been ported from x86 side w/ minor adjustments.
I've not looked at the patch yet, but if it only involves minor adjustments
from the x86 side can some amount of it not be refactored into common code?


At a first glance it seems to me that parts of monitor vm-events code could be moved to common. But it also seems that it would require a bit of effort and I'm not sure yet if the end result won't actually complicate implementation of monitor vm-events for other architectures in the future. Some of the monitor vm-events implemented are strictly architecture specific,
e.g. VM_EVENT_REASON_MOV_TO_MSR will always be an x86-only vm-event, unless
it is somehow generalized (maybe somehow merged w/ VM_EVENT_REASON_WRITE_CTRLREG?). But *most* of them indeed don't directly have this kind of specificity, so it would make sense to make
most of the code common, if possible.

To me personally this seems like a good idea and I'd be willing to give it a try, but as I said,
it might require some other changes of the code, including x86 changes.
I was about to release another patch after this one to implement control-register writes vm-events for ARM, but I anticipate that doing this move first will actually benefit my effort in that
direction as well (I think the patch code will get to be cleaner).

So, shall I try it?

Thanks, Corneliu.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.