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

[Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/9/2016 9:26 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > 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.
Good idea.

> > +    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.
Ack.

> > +    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.
I stated the reason for that in the commit message (see 3rd '*'), Jan 
insists it would be preferable to occupy just one pointer in arch_vcpu 
(which would still hold if we do as you suggest but I was wondering how 
probable would it be in the future for one of the paging/share vm-event 
subsystems to need per-vCPU resources). But personally, yeah, I would 
have preferred what you suggest as well..
Zuzu.

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