On 2/19/2016 6:02 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> 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?

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.