>>> On 21.03.18 at 17:00, <aisa...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> On Mi, 2018-03-21 at 08:57 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 21.03.18 at 15:47, <aisa...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
>> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
>> > @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ struct hvm_function_table {
>> > bool_t access_w, bool_t access_x);
>> >
>> > void (*enable_msr_interception)(struct domain *d, uint32_t
>> > msr);
>> > + void (*enable_icebp_interception)(struct domain *d);
>> > + void (*disable_icebp_interception)(struct domain *d);
>> Why two new hooks when one (with a boolean parameter)
>> would do?
>>
> Would update_icebp_interception() be a suitable name for the hook?
"update" or "set" would both seem fine to me.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
