From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm/monitor vm-events: Implement guest-request support Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:06:56 +0200 Message-ID: <56CC3D50.7010807@bitdefender.com> References: <1455824116-13783-1-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.com> <56CC21B1.70202@bitdefender.com> <56CC3A61.2060409@bitdefender.com> <56CC3BDF.5000603@bitdefender.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56CC3BDF.5000603@bitdefender.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: Corneliu ZUZU , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: Tamas K Lengyel , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Andrew Cooper , Stefano Stabellini , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/23/2016 01:00 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: > On 2/23/2016 12:54 PM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >> On 02/23/2016 11:09 AM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: >>> On 2/18/2016 9:35 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. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU >>> Before sending in the next revision of this patch, I have a few >>> questions I'd like to ask. >>> That being the case, I thought it would be ok to also include *all* the >>> changes that will be done in the next revision here for (potentially) >>> additional feedback. >>> >>> Already discussed changes TBD: >>> * Add #define altp2m_active(d) (0) and implement >>> p2m_get_vcpu_altp2m_idx(v) for ARM to remove #ifdef CONFIG_X86 in >>> hvm_event_traps (Stefano, Tamas) >>> * Remove wrong copyright comment (Jan) >>> * Change bitfields members type back to unsigned int (Jan) >>> * Move hvm_event_traps and hvm_event_guest_request to common/vm_event.c >>> and rename them to vm_event_traps and vm_event_guest_request (Jan) >>> >>> Questions: >>> >>> 1) I've noticed the practice in Xen is to prepend the arch_ prefix to >>> functions that usually have a counterpart on the common-side, i.e. there >>> are a lot of arch-specific functions missing this prefix. Would it then >>> be advised to: >>> - rename arch_monitor_get_capabilities to >>> vm_event_monitor_get_capabilities and move it to vm_event.h >>> - rename arch_hvm_event_fill_regs to vm_event_fill_regs and move it >>> to vm_event.h >> Please see the recent commit adc75eba8b15c7103a010f736fe62e3fb2383964 in >> staging. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Razvan >> > > Great, that settles arch_hvm_event_fill_regs -> vm_event_fill_regs. > Should I then do the same for arch_monitor_get_capabilities (-> > vm_event_monitor_get_capabilities)? Sounds good to me, so yes, unless Tamas or Jan think otherwise. Thanks, Razvan