>>> On 09.02.16 at 12:52, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 2/9/2016 1:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 08.02.16 at 17:57, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >>> This patch merges almost identical functions hvm_event_int3 >>> and hvm_event_single_step into a single function called >>> hvm_event_software_breakpoint. >> Except that "software breakpoint" is rather questionable a name >> here, considering that on x86 this is basically an alias for "int3". >> If it was "breakpoint", one might argue (see the other responses >> you've got) that breakpoint event resulting from debug register >> settings might then be candidates to come here too. > > Yeah..should I then: > * keep both functions and only rename hvm_event_int3 to > hvm_event_software_breakpoint
I actually think that the intention of folding two almost identical functions is a good one. I'm merely suggesting to think of a better name - perhaps just "breakpoint" or "debug event"? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
