On 05/04/17 17:57, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:14, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/04/17 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:00, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>>>> Created arch/x86/hvm/vm_event.c and include/asm-x86/hvm/vm_event.h,
>>>>> where HVM-specific vm_event-related code will live. This cleans up
>>>>> hvm_do_resume() and ensures that the vm_event maintainers are
>>>>> responsible for changes to that code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>>>> albeit I wonder ...
>>>>
>>>>> +void hvm_vm_event_do_resume(struct vcpu *v)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct monitor_write_data *w;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if ( likely(!v->arch.vm_event) )
>>>>> + return;
>>>>
>>>> ... whether this now wouldn't better be an ASSERT().
>>>
>>> I have no objections (can this be done on commit or should I re-send V4?).
>>
>> Let's first see what Tamas thinks. If he agrees, I see not problem
>> doing the adjustment while committing.
>
> I'm not quite sure how converting that to an ASSERT would work. It
> looks fine to me as is tbh.
I think Jan means that, since currently the only caller is
hvm_do_resume() where there's already that check now (to avoid the
call), we could here simply replace the if() with
ASSERT(v->arch.vm_event). I could be wrong. :)
Thanks,
Razvan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
