[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] xen/vm_event: introduce vm_event_is_enabled()
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 08:18:35 -0400
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=tklengyel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmarc=pass header.from=<tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1757938752; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=nMENMgkEm0iRso4+GD3zG/CwrpYfs5RQRWgp6rLB49c=; b=mIG1+I11dHUxpzavcR/2pG6BApf4VeTq1wGjaD1bxNJC4hrkSx9DCtV1oxCiOOZRWRq1S3ddF5VfN9queBjJxLXAcybybRtjhCB8ilJLxcITnmoTsSy+r18MdmjVlwDZvPkaoRZV+tr4Bmcg/z+lM4sUtbNtDCn6tXWWkzzTTRA=
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1757938752; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=XKRIt9W7fHnavqJGbr3EbeEdKp7O6YOYfol7LqUcEFcN9eSANeujfkeBdrX6N74U8FAFNHcG6Eqg+Parj6cfU6pb5bNz1U/8+sVB7kf+0lr3QMUL356lhWvXWdVbK3Z2vFC1R6Dqw8IIr39bldKphS1Jdj6Q/YL1fv/mVwHfVv4=
- Cc: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@xxxxxxx>, ray.huang@xxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alexandru Isaila <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Petre Pircalabu <ppircalabu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:19:26 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 9:49 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14.09.2025 01:24, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>> +static inline bool vm_event_is_enabled(struct vcpu *v)
> >>> +{
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_VM_EVENT
> >>> + return v->arch.vm_event != NULL;
> >>
> >> Is "enabled" (in the function name) a good description of this condition,
> >> Tamas?
> >
> > Sure, sounds fine to me.
>
> That is the pointer alone being non-NULL identifies "enabled"? And not
> just e.g. "active" or "available" (can be enabled with further things
> set up)?
Nope, just that the struct is non-NULL means vm_event is enabled.
There is no meaningful distinction of enabled vs active vs available
in the contexts this is being checked.
Tamas
|
