On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 7:12 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 31.01.19 at 05:28, <christopher.w.cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1802,6 +2157,21 @@ do_argo_op(unsigned int cmd,
> > XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg1,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > + case XEN_ARGO_OP_notify:
> > + {
> > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_argo_ring_data_t) ring_data_hnd =
> > + guest_handle_cast(arg1, xen_argo_ring_data_t);
> > +
> > + if ( unlikely((!guest_handle_is_null(arg2)) || arg3 || arg4) )
> > + {
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rc = notify(currd, ring_data_hnd);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > default:
> > rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > break;
> > @@ -1912,6 +2282,21 @@ compat_argo_op(unsigned int cmd,
> > XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg1,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > + case XEN_ARGO_OP_notify:
> > + {
> > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_argo_ring_data_t) ring_data_hnd =
> > + guest_handle_cast(arg1, xen_argo_ring_data_t);
> > +
> > + if ( unlikely((!guest_handle_is_null(arg2)) || arg3 || arg4) )
> > + {
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rc = notify(currd, ring_data_hnd);
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> At the example of this (likely applies to earlier patches as much): Aren't
> you afraid of this recurring duplication? It's quite easy, especially when
> the functions here grow a little further, for someone to forget updating
> one (more likely the compat one obviously). Did you consider forwarding
> all operations not needing translation straight into do_argo_op(), and
> handling only the sendv one here?
Ack, ok.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
