Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/12] x86/altp2m: add control of suppress_ve.

[Ed White <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> @@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>>                                         p2m_access_t *p2ma,
>>                                         p2m_query_t q,
>>                                         unsigned int *page_order);
>> +    int                (*set_entry_full)(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
>> +                                         unsigned long gfn,
>> +                                         mfn_t mfn, unsigned int page_order,
>> +                                         p2m_type_t p2mt,
>> +                                         p2m_access_t p2ma,
>> +                                         unsigned int sve);
>> +    mfn_t              (*get_entry_full)(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
>> +                                         unsigned long gfn,
>> +                                         p2m_type_t *p2mt,
>> +                                         p2m_access_t *p2ma,
>> +                                         p2m_query_t q,
>> +                                         unsigned int *page_order,
>> +                                         unsigned int *sve);
> 
> I have to admit that I find the _full suffixes here pretty odd. Based
> on the functionality, they should be _sve. But then it seems
> questionable how they could be useful to the generic p2m layer
> anyway, i.e. why there would need to be such hooks in the first
> place.

I did originally use _sve suffixes. I changed them because there
may be some future case where these routines control some other
EPTE bit too. I made them hooks because I thought calling ept...
functions directly would be a layering violation.

Ed

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