[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/14] livepatch: Add support for inline asm hotpatching expectations
- To: Pawel Wieczorkiewicz <wipawel@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:30:43 -0400
- Cc: wipawel@xxxxxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mpohlack@xxxxxxxxxx, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:31:14 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 8/21/19 4:19 AM, Pawel Wieczorkiewicz wrote:
typedef enum livepatch_func_state {
LIVEPATCH_FUNC_NOT_APPLIED = 0,
LIVEPATCH_FUNC_APPLIED = 1
@@ -838,11 +850,12 @@ struct livepatch_func {
uint32_t new_size;
uint32_t old_size;
uint8_t version; /* MUST be LIVEPATCH_PAYLOAD_VERSION. */
- uint8_t opaque[31];
+ uint8_t opaque[LIVEPATCH_OPAQUE_SIZE];
#if defined CONFIG_X86
uint8_t applied;
uint8_t _pad[7];
#endif
+ livepatch_expectation_t expect;
};
Aaah, now I understand why you decide to create a new field _pad and
applied field!
Any particular reason why the version can't be 2 since this can be part
of this changeset? Also you would need to have a Documentation change.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
