Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/vvmx: correctly emulate VMWRITE

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Sergey Dyasli <sergey.dyasli@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] x86/vvmx: correctly emulate VMWRITE
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:42:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <589B2E550200007800137BF7@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170208100935.30332-4-sergey.dyasli@citrix.com>

>>> On 08.02.17 at 11:09, <sergey.dyasli@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c
> @@ -305,6 +305,19 @@ void set_vvmcs_real(const struct vcpu *v, u32 encoding, u64 val)
>      virtual_vmcs_vmwrite(v, encoding, val);
>  }
>  
> +enum vmx_insn_errno set_vvmcs_virtual_safe(void *vvmcs, u32 encoding, u64 val)
> +{
> +    set_vvmcs_virtual(vvmcs, encoding, val);
> +
> +    return 0;

I think the growing number of literal zeros requires the introduction
of a "no error" enumerator value, probably even to be used by the
two earlier patches (which, if you did so, wouldn't invalidate my R-b).
Furthermore, didn't earlier discussion result in it being desirable to
at least add a comment here clarifying that the unconditional
returning of success isn't really the intended behavior (i.e. more
work is needed here)?

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel