>>> On 01.09.16 at 09:26, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> On 09/01/16 02:52, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/public/vm_event.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/public/vm_event.h
>> @@ -226,6 +226,13 @@ struct vm_event_mov_to_msr {
>>
>> struct vm_event_cpuid {
>> uint32_t insn_length;
>> + /*
>> + * Value of EAX and ECX when CPUID was executed.
>> + * Note that the resulting register values are accessible in
>> + * vm_event_regs_x86.
>> + */
>> + uint32_t eax;
>> + uint32_t ecx;
>> uint32_t _pad;
>> };
>
> Would it not be clearer if you named these old_eax and old_ecx? In user
> code it would be hard to choose between these and the values in
> vm_event_regs_x86, and then hard to understand why the choice was made
> reading the user code later on (unless a comment is added) and so on.
>
> It doesn't have to be old_eax and old_ecx, any other naming that
> prevents cofusion would be great.
What about leaf and subleaf?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
