From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] x86/traps: improvements to {rd,
	wr}msr_hypervisor_regs()
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:32:26 +0100
Message-ID: <5253D12A.70808@citrix.com>
References: <5252D51402000078000F943A@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1381153604-30042-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<5253E3E802000078000F97CC@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1VTTeZ-0003zv-AA
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:32:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5253E3E802000078000F97CC@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 08/10/13 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.10.13 at 15:46, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> @@ -595,55 +595,50 @@ DO_ERROR_NOCODE(TRAP_copro_error,     coprocessor_error)
>>  DO_ERROR(       TRAP_alignment_check, alignment_check)
>>  DO_ERROR_NOCODE(TRAP_simd_error,      simd_coprocessor_error)
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * Returns 0 if not handled, and non-0 for error. (The calling semantics are
>> + * in need of some work)
>> + */
>>  int rdmsr_hypervisor_regs(uint32_t idx, uint64_t *val)
>>  {
> The comment here still isn't in line with the existing callers. Non-
> zero means success afaict. There simply is no path resulting in
> an error here so far.
>
>> +    switch ( idx - base )
>>      {
>> -    case 0:
>> +    case 0: /* Write hypercall page.  Reads are invalid. Hand a #GP back. */
>>      {
>>          *val = 0;
>> -        break;
>> +        return 1;
> And the above means that there's no #GP being "handed back"
> here either.
>
> Jan
>

/sigh - Quite right.  I misread the where the breaks were going in the
callers.

~Andrew