From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.5 v8 06/19] xen: Relocate mem_event_op
 domctl and access_op memop into common.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:00:47 +0300
Message-ID: <54217D0F.90606@bitdefender.com>
References: <1411478070-13836-1-git-send-email-tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de>	<1411478070-13836-7-git-send-email-tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de>
	<542192860200007800037BB5@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <542192860200007800037BB5@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de>
Cc: ian.campbell@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, julien.grall@linaro.org, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, andres@lagarcavilla.org, dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/23/2014 04:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/mem_event.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/mem_event.c
>> @@ -623,12 +623,9 @@ int mem_event_domctl(struct domain *d, 
>> xen_domctl_mem_event_op_t *mec,
>>                                      HVM_PARAM_ACCESS_RING_PFN,
>>                                      mem_access_notification);
>>  
>> -            if ( mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE &&
>> -                 rc == 0 && hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception )
>> -            {
>> -                d->arch.hvm_domain.introspection_enabled = 1;
>> -                hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
>> -            }
>> +            if ( !rc && mec->op != XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_ACCESS_ENABLE )
>> +                p2m_enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
> 
> The name is clearly not suitable for an abstraction - there's certainly
> not going to be MSRs on each and every CPU architecture. Maybe
> consult with Razvan on an agreeable more suitable name.

P2m_set_up_introspection() perhaps? With the MSR HVM code where
applicable, nothing (or something else) where not? Would this be too
generic?


Regards,
Razvan Cojocaru