Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4] tools/libxc, xen/x86: Added xc_set_mem_access_multi()

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:39:47PM +0300, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 07:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 07.09.16 at 11:12, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Currently it is only possible to set mem_access restrictions only for
> >> a contiguous range of GFNs (or, as a particular case, for a single GFN).
> >> This patch introduces a new libxc function taking an array of GFNs.
> >> The alternative would be to set each page in turn, using a userspace-HV
> >> roundtrip for each call, and triggering a TLB flush per page set.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Hypervisor parts (without ARM and x86/mm)
> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > albeit I spotted one more cosmetic issue (which I guess could be
> > fixed up during commit, if no other reason for a v5 arises):
> > 
> >> @@ -321,9 +322,22 @@ int compat_memory_op(unsigned int cmd, 
> >> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) compat)
> >>          }
> >>  
> >>          case XENMEM_access_op:
> >> -            return mem_access_memop(cmd,
> >> -                                    guest_handle_cast(compat,
> >> -                                                      
> >> xen_mem_access_op_t));
> >> +        {
> >> +            if ( copy_from_guest(&cmp.mao, compat, 1) )
> >> +                return -EFAULT;
> >> +
> >> +#define XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_pfn_list(_d_, _s_) \
> >> +            guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->pfn_list, (_s_)->pfn_list)
> >> +#define XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_access_list(_d_, _s_) \
> >> +            guest_from_compat_handle((_d_)->access_list, 
> >> (_s_)->access_list)
> >> +
> >> +            XLAT_mem_access_op(nat.mao, &cmp.mao);
> >> +
> >> +#undef XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_pfn_list
> >> +#undef XLAT_mem_access_op_HNDL_access_list
> >> +
> >> +            break;
> >> +        }
> > 
> > There are no local variables declared here, so I don't see the need
> > for the braces.
> 
> There have only been Acked-by replies so far, but if you'd prefer I have
> no problem sending a V5 removing the braces.
> 

Does this patch have all the necessary acks? If so I don't mind fixing
it up and committing it.

Wei.

> 
> Thanks,
> Razvan

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