Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/p2m: split write_p2m_entry() hook

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 10:24 +0100 on 28 Oct (1603880693), Jan Beulich wrote:
> Fair parts of the present handlers are identical; in fact
> nestedp2m_write_p2m_entry() lacks a call to p2m_entry_modify(). Move
> common parts right into write_p2m_entry(), splitting the hooks into a
> "pre" one (needed just by shadow code) and a "post" one.
> 
> For the common parts moved I think that the p2m_flush_nestedp2m() is,
> at least from an abstract perspective, also applicable in the shadow
> case. Hence it doesn't get a 3rd hook put in place.
> 
> The initial comment that was in hap_write_p2m_entry() gets dropped: Its
> placement was bogus, and looking back the the commit introducing it
> (dd6de3ab9985 "Implement Nested-on-Nested") I can't see either what use
> of a p2m it was meant to be associated with.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

This seems like a good approach to me.  I'm happy with the shadow
parts but am not confident enough on nested p2m any more to have an
opinion on that side. 

Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>