On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Boris Ostrovsky
<boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
>> index 811e4ddb3f37..a3dcd83187ce 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
>> @@ -579,6 +579,71 @@ static void xen_write_ldt_entry(struct desc_struct *dt,
>> int entrynum,
>> preempt_enable();
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>> +static struct {
>> + void (*orig)(void);
>> + void (*xen)(void);
>> + bool ist_okay;
>> + bool handle;
>> +} trap_array[] = {
>> + { debug, xen_xendebug, true, true },
>> + { int3, xen_xenint3, true, true },
>> + { double_fault, xen_double_fault, true, false },
>
> Is it really worth adding 'handle' member to the structure because of a
> single special case? We don't expect to ever have another such vector.
>
> (TBH, I think current implementation of cvt_gate_to_trap() is clearer,
> even if it is not as general as what is in this patch. I know that Andy
> disagrees).
I have no real opinion either way. I just think it's nicer to put it
in cvt_gate_to_trap() instead of the the traps.c setup code.
--Andy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
