On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:45:00AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> With them depending on just the number of shadow levels, there's no need
> for more than one instance of them, and hence no need for any hook (IOW
> 452219e24648 ["x86/shadow: monitor table is HVM-only"] didn't go quite
> far enough). Move the functions to hvm.c while dropping the dead
> is_pv_32bit_domain() code paths.
>
> While moving the code, replace a stale comment reference to
> sh_install_xen_entries_in_l4(). Doing so made me notice the function
> also didn't have its prototype dropped in 8d7b633adab7 ("x86/mm:
> Consolidate all Xen L4 slot writing into init_xen_l4_slots()"), which
> gets done here as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
> ---
> v3: New.
> ---
> TBD: In principle both functions could have their first parameter
> constified. In fact, "destroy" doesn't depend on the vCPU at all
> and hence could be passed a struct domain *. Not sure whether such
> an asymmetry would be acceptable.
> In principle "make" would also not need passing of the number of
> shadow levels (can be derived from v), which would result in yet
> another asymmetry.
I'm not specially fuzzed either way - having const v would be good
IMO.
Thanks, Roger.
