On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04.05.17 at 17:17, <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. :)
>
> You aren't - that's precisely my reasoning.
So if we are changing this to an ASSERT here then a check needs to be
added on the caller site. That would work for me.
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
