Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 2/2] hvm/svm: Enable EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED events on svm

[Alexandru Stefan ISAILA <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Lu, 2018-07-02 at 04:59 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11.05.18 at 13:11, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/monitor.h
> > @@ -83,16 +83,13 @@ static inline uint32_t
> > arch_monitor_get_capabilities(struct domain *d)
> >                      (1U << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_INTERRUPT) |
> >                      (1U << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_CPUID) |
> >                      (1U <<
> > XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_DEBUG_EXCEPTION) |
> > -                    (1U <<
> > XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_WRITE_CTRLREG));
> > +                    (1U << XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_WRITE_CTRLREG)
> > |
> > +                    (1U <<
> > XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED));
> >
> > -    if ( cpu_has_vmx )
> > -    {
> > -        capabilities |= (1U <<
> > XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED);
> >
> > -        /* Since we know this is on VMX, we can just call the hvm
> > func */
> > -        if ( hvm_is_singlestep_supported() )
> > -            capabilities |= (1U <<
> > XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_SINGLESTEP);
> > -    }
> > +     /* Check if we are on VMX and then we can just call the hvm
> > func */
> > +    if ( cpu_has_vmx && hvm_is_singlestep_supported() )
> > +        capabilities |= (1U <<
> > XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_SINGLESTEP);
> I was about to apply this when I noticed the seemingly unnecessary
> cpu_has_vmx here: hvm_is_singlestep_supported() is precisely the
> abstraction to make such extra checking unnecessary. If you agree,
> I can drop it while applying.
>
Yes I agree with this and it is ok to drop it.

Thanks,
Alex

________________________
This email was scanned by Bitdefender
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel