On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 08:05 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote: > > @@ -410,6 +414,8 @@ void vm_event_resume(struct domain *d, struct > > vm_event_domain *ved) > > > > > > #ifdef HAS_MEM_ACCESS > > case VM_EVENT_REASON_MEM_ACCESS: > > + case VM_EVENT_REASON_MOV_TO_MSR: > > + case VM_EVENT_REASON_WRITE_CTRLREG: > > > > > > This doesn't really make much sense to be associated with MEM_ACCESS. > > I'm adding a separate arch-specific vm_event file in my other singlestep > > patch, I think these should trigger their appropriate handler there, not > > in mem_access_resume. > > As said, I very much agree with the suggestion, but I don't see your > patch in staging yet. > > Should I either (with the goal of ideally making the 4.6 release, and of > course unless somebody else has other issues with the patch or this > specific change): > > * Add the new file your patch added again in my patch; > > * If it's about to be commited soon (?) wait for your patch to make it > into staging (this I think would be the best path, if possible), or > > * Leave it as it is for now and follow up post-4.6? > > > Thanks, > Razvan > We can also just coordinate our two patch series. I'll push mine into github, you can rebase on top of it and submit the entire thing in one send. How does that sound? Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
