Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next v3 06/22] x86/traps: move PV hypercall handlers to pv/traps.c

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:59:31PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.05.17 at 19:40, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 29/05/17 16:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 18.05.17 at 19:09, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> The following handlers are moved:
> >>> 1. do_set_trap_table
> >> This one makes sense to move to pv/traps.c, but ...
> >>
> >>> 2. do_set_debugreg
> >>> 3. do_get_debugreg
> >>> 4. do_fpu_taskswitch
> >> ... none of these do. I could see them go into pv/hypercall.c,
> >> but I could also see that file dealing intentionally only with
> >> everything hypercall related except individual handlers. Andrew,
> >> do you have any opinion or thoughts here?
> > 
> > Despite its name, traps.c deals with mostly low level exception
> > handling, so I am not completely convinced that do_set_trap_table()
> > would logically live in traps.c
> 
> I can see this being the case for traps.c, but pv/traps.c? There's
> not much _low level_ exception handling that's PV-specific. But I
> certainly don't mind such relatively small hypercall handlers to be
> lumped together into some other file, ...
> 
> > I'd also prefer not to mix these into hypercall.c.  The best I can
> > suggest is pv/domain.c, but even that isn't great.
> > 
> > Sorry for being unhelpful.  I'm not sure pv/misc-hypercalls.c is a
> > suitable name either.
> 
> ... be it this name or some other one (if we can think of a better
> alternative). Thinking of it: The currently present file is named
> "hypercall.c" - how about "hypercalls.c"?
> 

Well I don't think moving them into hypercall(s).c is nice either.

Since you expressed the idea of using iret.c for do_iret, maybe we can
use debugreg.c and fpu_taskswitch.c ?

> Jan
> 

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