From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Subject: Re: wrong vmexit size in xenalyze
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:07:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20101119100712.GA5089@aepfle.de>
References: <C90BF541.A851%keir@xen.org>
 <4CE6484B.9000707@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CE6484B.9000707@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, Nov 19, George Dunlap wrote:

> If you have a better idea, I'm open to it.  A bit more discipline --
> doing an audit of the tracing after the feature freeze before each
> release -- would be helpful; some automated testing would be even
> more helpful.

I think the extra u32 is just padding and can be ignored.
Whats the purpose of the ->extra_bytes checks? If its just a data
integrity check, it can be removed because reading past the end of the
record data should not harm. Maybe limit the loops which iterate
->extra_bytes to 7 because more doesnt fit in a trace record.


Olaf