On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 23.09.14 at 16:04, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 23.09.14 at 15:14, <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de> wrote:
> >> > +void p2m_mem_event_emulate_check(struct domain *d, const
> mem_event_response_t *rsp)
> >> > +{
> >> > +    /* Mark vcpu for skipping one instruction upon rescheduling. */
> >> > +    if ( rsp->flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE )
> >> > +    {
> >> > +        struct vcpu *v = current;
> >>
> >> Compare this with ...
> >>
> >> > -void p2m_mem_access_resume(struct domain *d)
> >> > -{
> >> > -    mem_event_response_t rsp;
> >> > -
> >> > -    /* Pull all responses off the ring */
> >> > -    while( mem_event_get_response(d, &d->mem_event->access, &rsp) )
> >> > -    {
> >> > -        struct vcpu *v;
> >> > -
> >> > -        if ( rsp.flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_DUMMY )
> >> > -            continue;
> >> > -
> >> > -        /* Validate the vcpu_id in the response. */
> >> > -        if ( (rsp.vcpu_id >= d->max_vcpus) || !d->vcpu[rsp.vcpu_id] )
> >> > -            continue;
> >> > -
> >> > -        v = d->vcpu[rsp.vcpu_id];
> >>
> >> ... the original code. I.e. you should pass v instead of d into
> >> p2m_mem_event_emulate_check().
> >>
> >
> > Ah good point, but I think passing d is better (as it is also required
> > further down), I just have to make v = d->vcpu[rsp.vcpu_id] instead of
> > current.
>
> No - d can simply be had from v->domain.
>
> Jan
>

Ack. Would you still prefer splitting the abstraction from this patch into
a separate one?

Tamas