On 11.09.2019 13:21, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: > On 9/11/19 1:39 PM, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >> >> >> On 11.09.2019 12:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 09.09.2019 17:35, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>> +/* >>>> + * Send memory access vm_events based on pfec. Returns true if the event >>>> was >>>> + * sent and false for p2m_get_mem_access() error, no violation and event >>>> send >>>> + * error. Assumes the caller will check arch.vm_event->send_event. >>>> + * >>>> + * NOTE: p2m_get_mem_access() can fail if the entry was not found in the >>>> EPT >>>> + * (in which case access to it is unrestricted, so no violations can >>>> occur). >>>> + * In this cases it is fine to continue the emulation. >>>> + */ >>>> +bool hvm_monitor_check_ept(unsigned long gla, gfn_t gfn, uint32_t pfec, >>>> + uint16_t kind) >>> >>> Why did you choose to have "ept" in the name and also mention it >>> in the commit? Is there anything in here which isn't generic p2m? >> >> The name was suggested by Razvan Cojocaru. I have no preference in the >> name. Maybe Tamas can suggest a good one. > > I've suggested "ept" in the name because "regular" emulation ignores it, > and this function takes it into account, hence the "check_ept" (which I > thought would be read together). It's fine to change it to something else.
Then "check_p2m" perhaps? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
