On 23.10.2017 11:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.10.17 at 18:32, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2017 07:15 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:07:41PM +0300, Petre Pircalabu wrote:
>>>> From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
>>>>
>>>> For the default EPT view we have xc_set_mem_access_multi(), which
>>>> is able to set an array of pages to an array of access rights with
>>>> a single hypercall. However, this functionality was lacking for the
>>>> altp2m subsystem, which could only set page restrictions for one
>>>> page at a time. This patch addresses the gap.
>>>>
>>>> HVMOP_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi has been added as a HVMOP (as opposed to
>>>> a
>>>> DOMCTL) for consistency with its HVMOP_altp2m_set_mem_access counterpart
>>>> (and
>>>> hence with the original altp2m design, where domains are allowed - with the
>>>> proper altp2m access rights - to alter these settings), in the absence of
>>>> an
>>>> official position on the issue from the original altp2m designers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Petre Pircalabu <ppircal...@bitdefender.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The title is a bit misleading -- this patch actually contains changes to
>>> hypervisor as well.
>>
>> Sorry, I have assumed that the hypervisor changes are implied. We're
>> happy to change it. Would "x86/altp2m: Added
>> xc_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi() and hypervisor support" be better?
>
> But please not again "Added" - we've had this discussion before.
> The title is supposed to tell what a patch does, not what the state
> of the code is after it was applied.
Will do, how does "{xen,libxc}/altp2m: support for setting restrictions
for an array of pages" sound?
We'll change the title as soon as we have comments to address for a new
version.
Thanks,
Razvan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
