Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/5] x86/hvm: Rework HVM_HCALL_invalidate handling

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.02.17 at 18:01, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13/02/17 16:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 13.02.17 at 14:03, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Sending an invalidation to the device model is an internal detail of
>>> completing the hypercall; callers should not need to be responsible for it.
>>> Drop HVM_HCALL_invalidate entirely and call send_invalidate_req() when
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> This makes the function boolean in nature, although the existing
>>> HVM_HCALL_{completed,preempted} to aid code clarity.
>> "are being retained" missing somewhere here?
> 
> Yes.  I already noticed and fixed that up.  It now reads
> 
> "This makes the function boolean in nature, although the existing
> HVM_HCALL_{completed,preempted} constants are kept to aid code clarity."
> 
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> @@ -3874,7 +3874,7 @@ static const hypercall_table_t hvm_hypercall_table[] 
>>> = 
>>> {
>>>  #undef HYPERCALL
>>>  #undef COMPAT_CALL
>>>  
>>> -int hvm_do_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>> +bool hvm_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>> I don't think bool is a particularly good choice when the callers can't
>> sensibly use the result without comparing with HVM_HCALL_*
> 
> Ok.  I will keep it as int.

With that
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>



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