On 11/10/2016 06:01 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Razvan Cojocaru > <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com <mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote: > > Hello Tamas, thanks for the review! > > On 11/10/2016 03:11 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/vm_event.h > > b/xen/include/asm-x86/vm_event.h > > index ca73f99..38c624c 100644 > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/vm_event.h > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/vm_event.h > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > > */ > > struct arch_vm_event { > > uint32_t emulate_flags; > > + bool monitor_next_interrupt; > > > > > > This should be in domain.h with the rest of the monitor control bits (as > > the name of the variable suggests as well). > > Unfortunately that would alter the semantics of the patch, as this > variable needs to be per-VCPU. Putting it in domain.h as you suggest > would make it per-domain. Looking at places to put it so that it would > serve this purpose, struct arch_vm_event felt like the most natural > place. > > > I see. I generally like to keep vm_event/monitor bits separate as to not > end up in the spaghetti we were in a couple years ago. Maybe introducing > a struct arch_monitor would be appropriate?
Yes, that's a reasonable request. I'll try that direction. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel