Re: [PATCH v3 11/13] x86/altp2m: define and implement alternate p2m HVMOP types.

[Ed White <edmund.h.white@intel.com>]

On 07/06/2015 03:09 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 01/07/15 19:09, Ed White wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Ed White <edmund.h.white@intel.com>
> 
> I am still very much unconvinced by the argument against having a single
> HVMOP_altp2m and a set of subops.  do_domctl() and do_sysctl() are
> examples of a subop style hypercall with different XSM settings for
> different subops.
> 
> Furthermore, factoring out a do_altp2m_op() handler would allow things
> like the hvm_altp2m_supported() check to be made common.  Factoring
> further to having a named common header of a subop and a domid at the
> head of every subop structure would allow all the domain rcu locking to
> become common outside of the subop switch.
> 

How do we get to a binding decision on whether making this change is
a prerequisite for acceptance or not? Changing the HVMOP encoding
means fairly extensive changes to the code in hvm.c, and the XSM
patch, and the code Tamas has written. It also necessitates significant
changes to all the code we use to test the intra-domain protection
model.

Feature freeze is Friday, and that's a lot to change, test, and get
approved.

Who owns the decision?

Ed