Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] mem_access: sanitize code around sending vm_event request

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 02.08.16 at 18:06, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2016 06:45, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>> On 01.08.16 at 18:52, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > +int hvm_monitor_mem_access(struct vcpu* v, bool_t sync,
>>> > +                           vm_event_request_t *req)
>>> > +{
>>> > +    return monitor_traps(v, sync, req);
>>> > +}
>>>
>>> Overall - is this a useful wrapper? Why can't the caller(s) call
>>> monitor_traps() directly? And if you really want to keep it, it would
>>> probably better be an inline one.
>>
>> The reason for this wrapper is to avoid having to include the common monitor
>> header here. I can move it into the hvm monitor header as inline, that's no
>> problem.
> 
> Actually, making it into inline would require that hvm/monitor.h
> include the common monitor.h as well, at which point having the
> wrapper would be useless as hvm.c would have effectively include
> common monitor.h too. So yea, the goal is to avoid having to include
> both common/monitor and hvm/monitor in hvm.c and it needs this kind of
> wrapper.

But what's wrong with including a header that declares a function you
want to call?

Jan


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