On 12/05/15 17:52, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: > On 05/12/2015 06:53 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/05/15 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 12/05/15 16:49, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >>>> On 05/12/2015 06:35 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12.05.15 at 16:58, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >>>>>> +/* Supported values for the vm_event_write_ctrlreg index. */ >>>>>> +#define X86_CR0 (1 << 0) >>>>>> +#define X86_CR3 (1 << 1) >>>>>> +#define X86_CR4 (1 << 2) >>>>>> +#define X86_XCR0 (1 << 3) >>>>> These names, being put in the public interface, are way too generic. >>>> I've copied them from Andrew Cooper's suggestion in the previous thread, >>>> hopefully he'll chime in. I'm happy to rename / move them if so desired. >>> I intended something like VM_EVENT_ARCH_X86_CR0 etc. >> or perhaps slightly more specific to ctrl_reg read/write. > VM_EVENT_ARCH_X86_MOV_TO_CR0? Or maybe VM_EVENT_WRITE_ARCH_X86_CR0?
Are there any other events which could plausibly use the same indicies? Monitoring ctrl_reg reads perhaps ? > > There's something else that should also be clarified: I've renamed the > vm_event.h struct to vm_event_write_ctrlreg, and changed > monitor.mov_to_cr* to monitor.write_ctrlreg*, but left > xc_monitor_mov_to_cr() in libxc, and mov_to_cr in the domctl part (I > thought it fit with mov_to_msr(), etc.). Should I change that to > write_ctrlreg as well? On the one hand, mov_to_cr seems to be consistent > with the previous interface, and on the other it's not consistent with > the name changes the patch has made. Any API/ABI changes in this area are fine until 4.6 is released, and a consistent interface is much preferred. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
