From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corneliu ZUZU Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] x86: hvm events: merge 2 functions into 1 Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:52:49 +0200 Message-ID: <56B9D311.3070106@bitdefender.com> References: <1454950682-9459-1-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.com> <1454950682-9459-3-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.com> <56B9D96602000078000CFFB3@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56B9D96602000078000CFFB3@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Kevin Tian , Tamas K Lengyel , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Razvan Cojocaru , Andrew Cooper , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Stefano Stabellini , Jun Nakajima List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2/9/2016 1:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.02.16 at 17:57, wrote: >> This patch merges almost identical functions hvm_event_int3 >> and hvm_event_single_step into a single function called >> hvm_event_software_breakpoint. > Except that "software breakpoint" is rather questionable a name > here, considering that on x86 this is basically an alias for "int3". > If it was "breakpoint", one might argue (see the other responses > you've got) that breakpoint event resulting from debug register > settings might then be candidates to come here too. > > Jan Yeah..should I then: * keep both functions and only rename hvm_event_int3 to hvm_event_software_breakpoint * separate the code that gets the GFN of the instruction pointer in a static inline function ? Corneliu.