On 22.02.2022 10:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 02:59:03PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Only one of them can be in use at a time, so make the whole set union- >> like. While doing the rename in SVM code, combine the two perf_incra(), >> generalizing the range upwards of VMEXIT_NPF. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
Thanks. >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c >> @@ -2644,7 +2644,10 @@ void svm_vmexit_handler(struct cpu_user_ >> goto out; >> } >> >> - perfc_incra(svmexits, exit_reason); >> + perfc_incra(vmexits, >> + exit_reason < VMEXIT_NPF >> + ? exit_reason >> + : exit_reason - VMEXIT_NPF + VMEXIT_NPF_PERFC); > > Should we assert that the index used here < SVM_PERF_EXIT_REASON_SIZE? > > Just so that adding new exit reasons without increasing > SVM_PERF_EXIT_REASON_SIZE is not likely to go unnoticed? But that's what the comments are for that the previous patch adds. Jan
