On 2/19/2016 6:02 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Jan Beulich > wrote: > > >>> On 18.02.16 at 20:35, > 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? > > > I too am wondering if this is the right way to architect this. It > would be better to move the guest-requested stuff into the generic > vm_event component as it doesn't seem to be HVM specific other then it > using an HVMOP hypercall to be triggered. > > Tamas > Oh, that. "xen/common/hvm/event.c". I too don't know if it's the right way, but Jan, please at least don't attribute the way the code already is to me, I did not architect it. And it's not human to expect doing everything perfectly in a single shot. If you're of the opinion that it should be in vm_event.c I will gladly try to put it there. Of course, that could also be done in another patch. Corneliu.