On 2/18/2016 11:25 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Razvan Cojocaru 
> <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com <mailto:rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/18/2016 09:35 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
>     > This patch adds ARM support for guest-request monitor vm-events.
>     >
>     > Summary of changes:
>     > == Moved to common-side:
>     >   * XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_GUEST_REQUEST handling (moved from X86
>     >       arch_monitor_domctl_event to common monitor_domctl)
>     >   * hvm_event_guest_request, hvm_event_traps (also added target
>     vcpu as param)
>     >   * guest-request bits from X86 'struct arch_domain' (to common
>     'struct domain')
>     > == ARM implementations:
>     >   * do_hvm_op now handling of HVMOP_guest_request_vm_event => calls
>     >       hvm_event_guest_request (as on X86)
>     >   * arch_monitor_get_capabilities: updated to reflect support for
>     >       XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_EVENT_GUEST_REQUEST
>     >   * vm_event_init_domain (does nothing), vm_event_cleanup_domain
>     > == Misc:
>     >   * hvm_event_fill_regs renamed to arch_hvm_event_fill_regs, no
>     longer
>     >       X86-specific. ARM-side implementation of this function
>     currently does
>     >       nothing, that will be added in a separate patch.
>
>     We should probably take into account what happens with Tamas'
>     "vm_event:
>     consolidate hvm_event_fill_regs and p2m_vm_event_fill_regs" patch
>     here.
>     That patch already affects hvm_event_fill_regs().
>
>
> Well it seems one of us will have to rebase depending which patch gets 
> accepted & merged first. The conflict is minimal so it's not a major 
> issue. If my patch gets merged first then just have to introduce the 
> empty function in the ARM header with the new name.
>
> Tamas
>

Okay then, for me it's fine either way.

Corneliu.