From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] Basic guest memory introspection support Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:50:11 +0300 Message-ID: <53B41C23.9070106@bitdefender.com> References: <53B40A70.2090309@bitdefender.com> <53B433A0020000780001F9E5@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53B433A0020000780001F9E5@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/02/2014 05:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 02.07.14 at 15:34, wrote: >> 4. Add an additional mem_event type, namely a VMCALL event - in order to >> do its work, our application occasionally triggers VMCALLs in the guest. > > That seems like bending the mem_event interface quite a bit - VMCALL > isn't really memory (or event) specific. First, thank you for the reply. I don't disagree that it's somewhat bending mem_event, however in the context of our application it became necessary to know exactly when a triggered VMCALL occured, so conceptually this was a noteworthy event for us. As for using mem_event for it, we chose it because it seems to be the closest thing to a standard Xen way of handling events, it is quite stable, and we thought it might not be such a stretch since there's also MEM_EVENT_REASON_SINGLESTEP. We thought that adding an extra mem_event type would solve the problem while adding as little unnecessary complications to the existing code, and making it as trouble-free as possible for Xen maintainers / testers. Thanks again, Razvan Cojocaru