From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] xen/mem_access: Support for
 memory-content hiding
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:33:16 +0300
Message-ID: <559BC70C.8080609@bitdefender.com>
References: <1436197873-4559-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<1436197873-4559-2-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+5d0-ypEjEhD9Uwc-ShDU=f-+EFMAJX5HXuc0xQqVvHwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<559AC880.3070406@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+5uGh+iOkNkkOUYj5ceOLYKpcA6_qBh_-Meec_krXH7WA@mail.gmail.com>
	<559B8989.3030001@bitdefender.com>
	<CAD33N+4kN7tiSK8gEePikZcpVL2FqxwsTJDLzfmVbQ3zZr9F7A@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: <CAD33N+4kN7tiSK8gEePikZcpVL2FqxwsTJDLzfmVbQ3zZr9F7A@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: "Lengyel, Tamas" <tlengyel@novetta.com>
Cc: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, kevin.tian@intel.com, keir@xen.org, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, eddie.dong@intel.com, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 07/07/2015 03:04 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
> <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com <mailto:rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 07/06/2015 09:30 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote:
>     >     If you'd prefer that I do some ground work for the future
>     (i.e. rename
>     >     MEM_ACCESS constants, etc.), please let me know.
>     >
>     >
>     > Yeap, that sounds reasonable to me.
> 
>     Any objections to this renaming?
> 
>     151 #define MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE_NOWRITE       (1 << 7)
>     152 /*
>     153  * Data is being sent back to the hypervisor in the event response,
>     to be
>     154  * returned by the read function when emulating an instruction.
>     155  * This flag is only useful when combined with MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE or
>     156  * MEM_ACCESS_EMULATE_NOWRITE.
>     157  * The flag has been defined here because it is used with mem_access
>     158  * events, and so should not accidentaly overwrite one of the above.
>     159  */
>     160 #define VM_EVENT_FLAG_SET_EMUL_READ_DATA (1 << 8)
> 
>     Are there any other small changes you'd like to see in this patch?
> 
> 
> That should suffice - with the flag being move to the VM_EVENT_FLAG list
> and the bitshift adjusted accordingly.

Right, sorry about that, that flag really doesn't have to care about
what the last MEM_ACCESS_ flag bit shift is, since that's only specific
to the mem_access event. For some obviously unexplainable reason I had
been convinced that there's some corner case where that matters but
that's cleary not true.


Thanks,
Razvan