Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V3 1/2] x86/vm_event: added hvm/vm_event.{h, c}

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 04.05.17 at 17:17, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/04/17 17:57, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:14, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/17 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:00, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Created arch/x86/hvm/vm_event.c and include/asm-x86/hvm/vm_event.h,
>>>>>> where HVM-specific vm_event-related code will live. This cleans up
>>>>>> hvm_do_resume() and ensures that the vm_event maintainers are
>>>>>> responsible for changes to that code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> albeit I wonder ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> +void hvm_vm_event_do_resume(struct vcpu *v)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    struct monitor_write_data *w;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    if ( likely(!v->arch.vm_event) )
>>>>>> +        return;
>>>>>
>>>>> ... whether this now wouldn't better be an ASSERT().
>>>>
>>>> I have no objections (can this be done on commit or should I re-send V4?).
>>>
>>> Let's first see what Tamas thinks. If he agrees, I see not problem
>>> doing the adjustment while committing.
>> 
>> I'm not quite sure how converting that to an ASSERT would work. It
>> looks fine to me as is tbh.
> 
> I think Jan means that, since currently the only caller is
> hvm_do_resume() where there's already that check now (to avoid the
> call), we could here simply replace the if() with
> ASSERT(v->arch.vm_event). I could be wrong. :)

You aren't - that's precisely my reasoning.

Jan


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