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:
> > Relocate p2m_mem_access_resume to common and abstract the new
> > p2m_mem_event_emulate_check into the p2m layer to.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tklengyel@sec.in.tum.de>
> > Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
> > ---
> > v8: Abstract p2m_mem_event_emulate_check.
>
> This is a pretty big change compared to the size of this patch, so
> retaining the ack wasn't really appropriate. That's even more so
> because you didn't even retain previous behavior:
>

I was debating about it and I had it as a separate patch first. If
required, should be no problem and I can resend the series before the
feature freeze.


>
> > +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.

Tamas


>
> Jan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>