>>> 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
