On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com > wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 07:04 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: > >>> @@ -27,9 +33,8 @@ bool_t hvm_event_cr(unsigned int index, unsigned > >>> long value, > >>> #define hvm_event_crX(what, new, old) \ > >>> hvm_event_cr(VM_EVENT_X86_##what, new, old) > >>> void hvm_event_msr(unsigned int msr, uint64_t value); > >>> -/* Called for current VCPU: returns -1 if no listener */ > >>> -int hvm_event_int3(unsigned long rip); > >>> -int hvm_event_single_step(unsigned long rip); > >>> +int hvm_event_breakpoint(unsigned long rip, > >>> + enum hvm_event_breakpoint_type type); > >> I guess the comment was here for a reason, and this reason doesn't > >> go away with this code folding. But I'll leave it to the VM event code > >> maintainers to judge. > >> > >> Jan > > > > That comment seemed & still seems wrong to me, I don't see any code > > paths out of which that function would return -1. > > That seems to be true. Those functions return whatever hvm_event_traps() > returns, which is 0 on success, 1 (maybe the minus is a typo?) if > there's no ring, or whatever value vm_event_claim_slot() returns. > Vm_event_claim_slot()'s documentation says that it can only return 0 (on > success), -ENOSYS or -EBUSY, none of which translate to -1 (and the code > seems to agree with that claim). > > Maybe I'm missing some macro wizardry here, but I don't think so - it > looks like the comment is stale. Tamas, maybe you remember more, should > those functions return -1 if no listener is present? > It could very well be that it's just a comment that was forgotten and is out-of-date. I don't see any issue removing it if it's actually misleading (as it seems to be). Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
