On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
<rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> 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. :)
>
Ah OK, yea that would be fine.
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
