On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> 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 > Sounds good. Probably it shouldn't take long to land that small fix in staging. But we will have conflicts as my patches introduce new VM_EVENT_FLAGs too so depending on the order of things, it's a PITA ;) Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
