From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] x86: hvm events: merge 2 functions into
	1
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:15:51 +0000
Message-ID: <56B8CD47.6050203@citrix.com>
References: <1454950682-9459-1-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.com>
	<1454950682-9459-3-git-send-email-czuzu@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>
In-Reply-To: <1454950682-9459-3-git-send-email-czuzu@bitdefender.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: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@bitdefender.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@tklengyel.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/02/16 16:57, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h
> index 11eb1fe..7c2252b 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h
> @@ -27,9 +27,8 @@ bool_t hvm_event_cr(unsigned int index, unsigned long value,
>  #define hvm_event_crX(what, new, old) \
>      hvm_event_cr(VM_EVENT_X86_##what, new, old)
>  void hvm_event_msr(unsigned int msr, uint64_t value);
> -/* Called for current VCPU: returns -1 if no listener */
> -int hvm_event_int3(unsigned long rip);
> -int hvm_event_single_step(unsigned long rip);
> +int hvm_event_software_breakpoint(unsigned long rip,
> +                                  bool_t single_step);

Are we liable to ever gain any other type of software breakpoint?  Might
it be more sense to pass an enum rather than a bool here?

Otherwise, the changes look sensible.

~Andrew