Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH V2 1/8] xen/mem_event: Cleanup of mem_event structures

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 16:17 +0100 on 18 Jan (1421594274), Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The public mem_event structures used to communicate with helper applications 
>> via
>> shared rings have been used in different settings. However, the variable 
>> names
>> within this structure have not reflected this fact, resulting in the reuse of
>> variables to mean different things under different scenarios.
>>
>> This patch remedies the issue by clearly defining the structure members 
>> based on
>> the actual context within which the structure is used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This looks like a nice improvement.  If everyone who commented about
> making ABI changes is happy with it, I am too.
>
> It would be nice if you could add some comments to the new struct
> definitions saying what the various fields mean (e.g. when the event
> triggers and what the fields will contain).

Ack, will do!

>
> One nit in the patch itself:
>
>> @@ -592,13 +592,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>                  }
>>
>>
>> -                rsp.gfn = req.gfn;
>> -                rsp.p2mt = req.p2mt;
>> +                rsp.mem_access_event.gfn = req.mem_access_event.gfn;
>
> You're dropping a p2mt update here.  Is that an oversight?
> With the obvious equivalent update inserted,

No, it is not. That field is only used by mem_sharing and mem_paging,
not by mem_access.

Thanks,
Tamas

>
> Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim.

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