On 06/24/2015 07:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.06.15 at 20:56, <edmund.h.wh...@intel.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/p2m.h
>> @@ -237,6 +237,19 @@ struct p2m_domain {
>> p2m_access_t *p2ma,
>> p2m_query_t q,
>> unsigned int *page_order);
>> + int (*set_entry_full)(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
>> + unsigned long gfn,
>> + mfn_t mfn, unsigned int page_order,
>> + p2m_type_t p2mt,
>> + p2m_access_t p2ma,
>> + unsigned int sve);
>> + mfn_t (*get_entry_full)(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
>> + unsigned long gfn,
>> + p2m_type_t *p2mt,
>> + p2m_access_t *p2ma,
>> + p2m_query_t q,
>> + unsigned int *page_order,
>> + unsigned int *sve);
>
> I have to admit that I find the _full suffixes here pretty odd. Based
> on the functionality, they should be _sve. But then it seems
> questionable how they could be useful to the generic p2m layer
> anyway, i.e. why there would need to be such hooks in the first
> place.
I did originally use _sve suffixes. I changed them because there
may be some future case where these routines control some other
EPTE bit too. I made them hooks because I thought calling ept...
functions directly would be a layering violation.
Ed
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
