Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/4] SVM: clean up svm_vmcb_isvalid()

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/31/2017 08:14 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 31/05/17 08:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - correct CR3 and CR4 checks
>> - add vcpu parameter (to include in log messages) and constify vmcb one
>> - use bool/true/false
>> - use accessors
>> - adjust formatting
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/nestedsvm.c
>> @@ -658,13 +658,13 @@ static int nsvm_vmcb_prepare4vmrun(struc
>>      /* Cleanbits */
>>      n2vmcb->cleanbits.bytes = 0;
>>  
>> -    rc = svm_vmcb_isvalid(__func__, ns_vmcb, 1);
>> +    rc = svm_vmcb_isvalid(__func__, ns_vmcb, v, true);
>>      if (rc) {
>>          gdprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "virtual vmcb invalid\n");
>>          return NSVM_ERROR_VVMCB;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    rc = svm_vmcb_isvalid(__func__, n2vmcb, 1);
>> +    rc = svm_vmcb_isvalid(__func__, n2vmcb, v, true);
> As these are the only two callsites, I don't think the __func__ or
> verbose parameters are useful.  I'd just drop them.

I actually think keeping this is useful. We indeed have only two
invocations but someone debugging a problem may want to add a few more.

-boris

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