On 07/07/2015 04:15 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Razvan Cojocaru > <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com <mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote: > > So VM_EVENT_FLAG_FOREIGN (1 << 1), and then MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE (1 << 6). > Now you're adding VM_EVENT_FLAG_TOGGLE_SINGLESTEP (1 << 2), and if we're > not very careful, slowly but surely the VM_EVENT_FLAG_ constants will > crawl towards (1 << 6) and start overlapping with MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE, > MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE_NOWRITE and so on, because they're not clearly > #defined right after the rest of the VM_EVENT_FLAG_ ones, are called > MEM_ACCESS_<something> just like the mem_access event specific flags, > and they use bit shifts relative to the MEM_ACCESS_ ones as well. This > is in part what has caused my confusion here. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Razvan > > > Well, this is clearly an oversight that we need to fix. MEM_ACCESS_* > flags should be only set on the mem_access flags field.
Right, if there are no objections, I'll just submit a small patch (in a few minutes) that moves MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE and MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE_NOWRITE up near the VM_EVENT_FLAG_ constants, and renames them VM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE and VM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE_NOWRITE. It seems like this would be a pretty straightforward change, so I assume it's likely to go in fast. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
