>>> On 17.10.17 at 17:05, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> @@ -16,4 +17,14 @@ static inline int pv_emul_is_mem_write(const struct
> x86_emulate_state *state,
> : X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
> }
>
> +/* Return a pointer to the GDT/LDT descriptor referenced by sel. */
> +static inline const struct desc_struct *gdt_ldt_desc_ptr(unsigned int sel)
I guess returning a pointer to const here is on the assumption that
you hope we would never have a need to fiddle with the descriptor?
> +{
> + const struct vcpu *curr = current;
> + const struct desc_struct *tbl = (void *)
> + ((sel & X86_XEC_TI) ? LDT_VIRT_START(curr) : GDT_VIRT_START(curr));
While the two happen to match, using an error code related
constant with something named "selector" doesn't look to be
really correct. But given the match, I don't mind it being this
way.
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
