From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Xc_mem_access_enable_emulate() is currently a
	no-operation
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:09:38 +0200
Message-ID: <56654CD2.2090707@bitdefender.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
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: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, "Lengyel, Tamas" <tlengyel@novetta.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hello,

While looking at some code with Tamas these past few days, we discovered
that xc_mem_access_enable_emulate() doesn't actually do anything other
that setting the mem_access_emulate_enabled flag.

Fixing that would likely be trivial (if the flag is not set,
p2m_mem_access_emulate_check() should just return). However, my question
is: do we really need that function? Are there cases where it would make
sense to use the vm_event subsystem but disable emulation support? After
all, if the client code wants to use emulation support it can call
xc_mem_access_enable_emulate(), and if not it can simply not set the
EMULATE flags in the vm_event replies.

As far as I'm concerned, the libxc function can go (along with the
per-domain flag), but then again we're emulation-intensive so it's quite
possible that I'm not seeing the proper use case for this.

Thoughts?


Thanks,
Razvan