Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] xen: make available hvm_fep to non-debug build as well

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:20:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 23.06.16 at 12:50, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:42:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.06.16 at 18:30, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > @@ -97,9 +98,17 @@ boolean_param("hap", opt_hap_enabled);
> >> >  
> >> >  #ifndef opt_hvm_fep
> >> >  /* Permit use of the Forced Emulation Prefix in HVM guests */
> >> > -bool_t opt_hvm_fep;
> >> > +bool_t __read_mostly opt_hvm_fep;
> >> >  boolean_param("hvm_fep", opt_hvm_fep);
> >> >  #endif
> >> > +static const char __initconst *warning_hvm_fep =
> >> > +    "**********************************************\n"
> >> > +    "******* WARNING: HVM FORCED EMULATION PREFIX IS AVAILABLE\n"
> >> > +    "******* This option is *ONLY* intended to aid testing of Xen.\n"
> >> > +    "******* It has implications on the security of the system.\n"
> >> > +    "******* Please *DO NOT* use this in production.\n"
> >> > +    "**********************************************\n";
> >> > +
> >> >  
> >> 
> >> Along with the same comment as on patch 2, here even more than
> >> there I wonder whether this string wouldn't better be a static local
> >> in hvm_enable() (or even the scope therein where warning_add()
> >> gets invoked).
> > 
> > I would rather the text stays next to where the option is defined so
> > it is obvious to anyone who touches this area of code.
> 
> Makes sense. But then - shouldn't it move inside the #ifndef?
> 

That would then require the warning_add() call to be wrapped in ifdef,
too. That looks a bit cumbersome to me.

Wei.

> Jan
> 

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