On 28/11/16 14:56, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 11:13 +0000 on 28 Nov (1480331614), Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Drop the call to hvm_inject_page_fault() in __hvm_copy(), and require callers >> to inject the pagefault themselves. > This seems like it'd be easy to forget to DTRT with the fault, > especially in code being ported forward across this series.
Code ported across the series will have an API change to accommodate. > > Would it be better to have hvm_copy &c take a callback function > instead of a pfinfo pointer? I considered both of these options, but this option seemed cleaner at the time. I am not fussed either way, but I don't see that a new function pointer would be any less easy to get wrong. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
