On 09/01/2016 10:58 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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?
That's perfect.
Thanks,
Razvan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
