From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/8] xen/mem_event: Cleanup of
 mem_event structures
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:53:16 +0200
Message-ID: <54C0F2BC.2090107@bitdefender.com>
References: <1421594281-27658-1-git-send-email-tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>	<1421594281-27658-2-git-send-email-tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>	<20150122124322.GA97314@deinos.phlegethon.org>
	<CAErYnshqPcdkk9qC5H5PJggf1d99jwX-KRH34WAJQUjQeqxu6A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAErYnshqPcdkk9qC5H5PJggf1d99jwX-KRH34WAJQUjQeqxu6A@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, wei.liu2@citrix.com, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "Dong,
	Eddie" <eddie.dong@intel.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andres@lagarcavilla.org>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>, yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 01/22/2015 02:50 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> At 16:17 +0100 on 18 Jan (1421594274), Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
>>>
>>> The public mem_event structures used to communicate with helper applications via
>>> shared rings have been used in different settings. However, the variable names
>>> within this structure have not reflected this fact, resulting in the reuse of
>>> variables to mean different things under different scenarios.
>>>
>>> This patch remedies the issue by clearly defining the structure members based on
>>> the actual context within which the structure is used.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>
>>
>> This looks like a nice improvement.  If everyone who commented about
>> making ABI changes is happy with it, I am too.
>>
>> It would be nice if you could add some comments to the new struct
>> definitions saying what the various fields mean (e.g. when the event
>> triggers and what the fields will contain).
> 
> Ack, will do!
> 
>>
>> One nit in the patch itself:
>>
>>> @@ -592,13 +592,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>>>                  }
>>>
>>>
>>> -                rsp.gfn = req.gfn;
>>> -                rsp.p2mt = req.p2mt;
>>> +                rsp.mem_access_event.gfn = req.mem_access_event.gfn;
>>
>> You're dropping a p2mt update here.  Is that an oversight?
>> With the obvious equivalent update inserted,
> 
> No, it is not. That field is only used by mem_sharing and mem_paging,
> not by mem_access.

Ah, I stand corrected. I've checked agains my original patch, but the
series also separates the mentioned areas.


Sorry for the noise,
Razvan