[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>, CORNELIU ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:49:49 +0200
  • Cc: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:49:33 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=CCv6m54SzOYXVGsdxNI4Y6I8Nhjdl6pyfOsLGqMH9jK7EAeuoUC0KyWMy3ME/YC4wiryx/xURBVF5XBiSNOofhnb1qRKfbl7XZ/YBJhRgoxBqyaCQIUgmGHPvk0+Cc/wPVGOExV8MPwZ12gmIpeAV6NIMRBbLpJTr1ASnRYu5RXC9qTb8tV8eGbV9EE7iM7NWUXBmJdPWKhPh9hOAE0Z3kY5WE8QqLql/0YaeR88d6avx7PvFQci7jdGuDpkoMdqLdA5cGhS54ZP0PB4bk9U7GYv1c93yi2JQC4lKPyXfw5fOMyuC2iRCM0tDqXeGkioNKWZNqHV5hkDFV3/PNsqqw==; 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 01/28/2016 02:45 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 14:36 +0200, CORNELIU ZUZU wrote:
>> 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?
>>> Ian.
>> 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/ 
>> 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.
> That the sort of thing we would usually handle by having the common code
> call into a arch_foo() to decode any non-common options.
>> 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?
> From my POV as an ARM maintainer I think this is the way to go. I've also
> copied the VM EVENT maintainers in case they object for some reason.
> I'd recommend always CCing Razvan and Tamas on this series, and considering
> adding any new ARM files to the entry in MAINTAINERS (assuming they don't
> object of course)

No objection from me on either factoring out the common code (where, and
if possible) or adding the new files to MAINTAINERS.


Xen-devel mailing list



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