Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.5 v9 04/19] xen: Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to mem_access common

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 24.09.14 at 15:05, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> >>> On 24.09.14 at 11:09, <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to common and abstract the new
>> > p2m_mem_event_emulate_check into the p2m layer to.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > v9: Pass the vcpu instead of the domain to emulate_check.
>>
>> Is it correct that you resent just patches 4 and 6 as v9?
>>
> 
> I didn't want to resend the entire 19 set series for just these two updates.

Which is fine I guess, I just wanted to double check.

>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
>> > @@ -1382,6 +1382,60 @@ static void
>> p2m_mem_event_fill_regs(mem_event_request_t *req)
>> >      req->x86_regs.cs_arbytes = seg.attr.bytes;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +void p2m_mem_event_emulate_check(struct vcpu *v, const
>> mem_event_response_t *rsp)
>> > +{
>> > +    /* Mark vcpu for skipping one instruction upon rescheduling. */
>> > +    if ( rsp->flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE )
>> > +    {
>> > +        struct domain *d = v->domain;
>> > +        xenmem_access_t access;
>> > +        bool_t violation = 1;
>> > +
>> > +        if ( p2m_get_mem_access(d, rsp->gfn, &access) == 0 )
>>
>> While it's certainly not wrong, I personally dislike such single use
>> local variables - you could easily (and without hampering readability)
>> pass v->domain here.
>>
> 
> Certainly. Does it worth another resend?

Probably not if no other need for resending arises.

Jan


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