On 2/19/2016 6:02 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com
<mailto:jbeul...@suse.com>> wrote:
>>> On 18.02.16 at 20:35, <cz...@bitdefender.com
<mailto:cz...@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> xen/arch/arm/hvm.c | 8 +++
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c | 116
++++++----------------------------------
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 1 +
> xen/arch/x86/monitor.c | 14 -----
> xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c | 1 +
> xen/common/Makefile | 2 +-
> xen/common/hvm/Makefile | 3 +-
> xen/common/hvm/event.c | 96
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So here you _again_ try to introduce something HVM-ish for ARM.
Why? Why can't this code live in common/vm_event.c?
I too am wondering if this is the right way to architect this. It
would be better to move the guest-requested stuff into the generic
vm_event component as it doesn't seem to be HVM specific other then it
using an HVMOP hypercall to be triggered.
Tamas
Oh, that. "xen/common/hvm/event.c". I too don't know if it's the right
way, but Jan, please at least don't attribute the way the code already
is to me, I did not architect it.
And it's not human to expect doing everything perfectly in a single
shot. If you're of the opinion that it should be in vm_event.c I will
gladly try to put it there. Of course, that
could also be done in another patch.
Corneliu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
