On 9/11/19 2:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 11.09.2019 13:21, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >> On 9/11/19 1:39 PM, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11.09.2019 12:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 09.09.2019 17:35, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * Send memory access vm_events based on pfec. Returns true if the event >>>>> was >>>>> + * sent and false for p2m_get_mem_access() error, no violation and event >>>>> send >>>>> + * error. Assumes the caller will check arch.vm_event->send_event. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * NOTE: p2m_get_mem_access() can fail if the entry was not found in the >>>>> EPT >>>>> + * (in which case access to it is unrestricted, so no violations can >>>>> occur). >>>>> + * In this cases it is fine to continue the emulation. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +bool hvm_monitor_check_ept(unsigned long gla, gfn_t gfn, uint32_t pfec, >>>>> + uint16_t kind) >>>> >>>> Why did you choose to have "ept" in the name and also mention it >>>> in the commit? Is there anything in here which isn't generic p2m? >>> >>> The name was suggested by Razvan Cojocaru. I have no preference in the >>> name. Maybe Tamas can suggest a good one. >> >> I've suggested "ept" in the name because "regular" emulation ignores it, >> and this function takes it into account, hence the "check_ept" (which I >> thought would be read together). It's fine to change it to something else. > > Then "check_p2m" perhaps?
Sounds good to me. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
