> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 06 January 2017 13:41 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>; Andrew > Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jun Nakajima > <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; xen-devel > <xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org>; Boris Ostrovsky > <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: restrict permitted instructions during > special purpose emulation > > >>> On 06.01.17 at 11:37, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >> Sent: 05 January 2017 10:55 > >> @@ -68,6 +80,11 @@ struct segment_register *hvmemul_get_seg > >> struct hvm_emulate_ctxt *hvmemul_ctxt); > >> int hvm_emulate_one_mmio(unsigned long mfn, unsigned long gla); > >> > >> +static inline bool handle_mmio(void) > >> +{ > >> + return hvm_emulate_one_insn(x86_insn_is_mem_access); > >> +} > >> + > > > > There are not many call sites for handle_mmio(). Would it not be better > just > > to change them all rather than using this inline for the few left after your > > changes to the SVM code? > > Well, I am of the opinion that where we're really dealing with MMIO, > the shorthand is more obvious than open coding it in all places, no > matter that there are only a few left. So I'd prefer to keep it as is. >
Ok, if you think it is illustrative of that difference then fair enough. Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
