On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Ed White <edmund.h.wh...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 06/24/2015 09:15 AM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
> >> +bool_t p2m_set_altp2m_mem_access(struct domain *d, uint16_t idx,
> >> + unsigned long pfn, xenmem_access_t
> >> access)
> >> +{
> >>
> >
> > This function IMHO should be merged with p2m_set_mem_access and should be
> > triggerable with the same memop (XENMEM_access_op) hypercall instead of
> > introducing a new hvmop one.
>
> I think we should vote on this. My view is that it makes XENMEM_access_op
> too complicated to use.
The two functions are not very long and share enough code that it would
justify merging. The only big change added is the copy from host->alt when
the entry doesn't exists in alt, and that itself is pretty self contained.
Let's see if we can get a third opinion on it..
> It also makes using this one specific altp2m
> capability different to using any of the others
>
That argument goes both ways - a new mem_access function being introduced
that is different from the others.
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
