Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 14/16] x86/monitor: clarify separation between monitor subsys and vm-event as a whole

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> index ae1dcb4..7663da2 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>  #include <asm/e820.h>
>  #include <asm/mce.h>
>  #include <public/vcpu.h>
> +#include <public/vm_event.h>
>  #include <public/hvm/hvm_info_table.h>
>
>  #define has_32bit_shinfo(d)    ((d)->arch.has_32bit_shinfo)
> @@ -503,6 +504,20 @@ typedef enum __packed {
>      SMAP_CHECK_DISABLED,        /* disable the check */
>  } smap_check_policy_t;
>
> +/*
> + * Should we emulate the next matching instruction on VCPU resume
> + * after a vm_event?
> + */
> +struct arch_vm_event_monitor {

This should be named struct arch_vcpu_monitor.

> +    uint32_t emulate_flags;
> +    struct vm_event_emul_read_data emul_read_data;

This should probably get renamed as well at some point to struct
monitor_emul_read_data.

> +    struct monitor_write_data write_data;
> +};
> +
> +struct arch_vm_event {
> +    struct arch_vm_event_monitor *monitor;
> +};

IMHO there is not much point in defining struct arch_vm_event this
way, we could just as well store the pointer to the arch_monitor
directly in arch_vcpu as we do right now.

> +
>  struct arch_vcpu
>  {
>      /*

Tamas

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