From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm/monitor vm-events: Implement
 guest-request support
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:26:12 -0700
Message-ID: <56C7341402000078000D427C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
References: <1455824116-13783-1-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.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: <1455824116-13783-1-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
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: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@bitdefender.com>
Cc: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@tklengyel.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 18.02.16 at 20:35, <czuzu@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                     |   1 +
>  xen/arch/arm/hvm.c              |   8 +++
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c        | 116 ++++++----------------------------------
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c          |   1 +
>  xen/arch/x86/monitor.c          |  14 -----
>  xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c         |   1 +
>  xen/common/Makefile             |   2 +-
>  xen/common/hvm/Makefile         |   3 +-
>  xen/common/hvm/event.c          |  96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So here you _again_ try to introduce something HVM-ish for ARM.
Why? Why can't this code live in common/vm_event.c?

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> @@ -376,17 +376,15 @@ struct arch_domain
>      unsigned long *pirq_eoi_map;
>      unsigned long pirq_eoi_map_mfn;
>  
> -    /* Monitor options */
> +    /* Arch-specific monitor options */
>      struct {
> -        unsigned int write_ctrlreg_enabled       : 4;
> -        unsigned int write_ctrlreg_sync          : 4;
> -        unsigned int write_ctrlreg_onchangeonly  : 4;
> -        unsigned int mov_to_msr_enabled          : 1;
> -        unsigned int mov_to_msr_extended         : 1;
> -        unsigned int singlestep_enabled          : 1;
> -        unsigned int software_breakpoint_enabled : 1;
> -        unsigned int guest_request_enabled       : 1;
> -        unsigned int guest_request_sync          : 1;
> +        uint16_t write_ctrlreg_enabled       : 4;
> +        uint16_t write_ctrlreg_sync          : 4;
> +        uint16_t write_ctrlreg_onchangeonly  : 4;
> +        uint16_t mov_to_msr_enabled          : 1;
> +        uint16_t mov_to_msr_extended         : 1;
> +        uint16_t singlestep_enabled          : 1;
> +        uint16_t software_breakpoint_enabled : 1;
>      } monitor;

What is this type change supposed to achieve in general, and in
particular in the context of this patch?

> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
>  /*
> - * event.h: Hardware virtual machine assist events.
> + * include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h
> + *
> + * Arch-specific hardware virtual machine event abstractions.
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2016, Bitdefender S.R.L.

Is this true? Namely, was _all_ of the code here written by people
on your company, including what may have got moved here from
elsewhere?

Jan