From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: Blocking CR and MSR writes via mem_access? Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:06:29 +0300 Message-ID: <5433E555.3080000@bitdefender.com> References: <542D2DA7.1060903@bitdefender.com> <542E98A1.5070706@citrix.com> <5432A674.7000205@bitdefender.com> <5433BEB3.2070300@bitdefender.com> <5433C4E7.5040102@bitdefender.com> <5433FB41020000780003CDBA@mail.emea.novell.com> <5433E15D.9060605@citrix.com> <5433E2CE.30609@bitdefender.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tamas K Lengyel Cc: Andrew Cooper , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/07/2014 03:58 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Razvan Cojocaru > > wrote: > > On 10/07/2014 03:49 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > The "xen" ought to be explicit given the prefix on the hypercalls. > > "vm-events" as a name? > > It's a good name. > > > Thanks, > Razvan > > > Provided that in the future we might want to include events generated by > hypervisor emulation / memory accesses into this event delivery system > it might be a bit misleading. Perhaps just events or monitor-events? > Either way, vm-events is already an improvement and for now it > certainly sounds appropriate. I suppose that it might be possible to send non-VM related events in the future (unless we count dom0 as a VM and any event not related to another VM a dom0-related event?). I'd be happy with any of the choices. Thanks, Razvan Cojocaru