>>> On 12.06.18 at 14:35, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 06/12/2018 03:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 11.06.18 at 17:12, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/common/domctl.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c >>> @@ -1094,6 +1094,8 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) >>> u_domctl) >>> domain_pause(d); >>> p2m_get_hostp2m(d)->access_required = >>> op->u.access_required.access_required; >>> + arch_domain_set_access_required(d, >>> + op->u.access_required.access_required); >> >> Perhaps the setting of the host p2m field should move into that >> function as well? > > No objection, but should in that case the logic still live in > common/domctl.c (if the only thing the case does is call > arch_domain_set_access_required())? > > I thought the common part (setting p2m_get_hostp2m(d)->access_required) > justifies the code remaining in the common/ source file.
Keeping it there has advantages, and moving it would have advantages too. I'm fine either way, I think. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
