>>> On 11.08.16 at 16:37, <tamas.leng...@zentific.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 2016 06:02, "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 10.08.16 at 17:00, <tamas.leng...@zentific.com> wrote: >> > @@ -5238,18 +5238,19 @@ static int do_altp2m_op( >> > goto out; >> > } >> > >> > - if ( (rc = xsm_hvm_altp2mhvm_op(XSM_TARGET, d)) ) >> > + if ( !d->arch.hvm_domain.params[HVM_PARAM_ALTP2M] ) >> > + { >> > + rc = -EINVAL; >> > + goto out; >> > + } >> > + >> > + if ( (rc = xsm_hvm_altp2mhvm_op(XSM_OTHER, d, >> > + d->arch.hvm_domain.params[HVM_PARAM_ALTP2M])) ) >> >> I'm sorry that this didn't occur to me on v1 already, but is there >> really a need for passing this extra argument, when the callee >> could - if it cared in the first place - read the value itself? > > I'm not sure if it's ok to have xsm poke around in arch specific parts like > this. We are adding this hvm param for ARM in another series but still..
Daniel, what's your opinion? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel