[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/7] xen: rename various functions referencing dom0
On 03/19/2014 05:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.03.14 at 22:34, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
@@ -50,10 +50,8 @@ custom_param("dom0_mem", parse_dom0_mem);
*/
#define DOM0_FDT_EXTRA_SIZE (128 + sizeof(struct fdt_reserve_entry))
-struct vcpu *__init alloc_dom0_vcpu0(void)
+struct vcpu *__init alloc_dom0_vcpu0(struct domain *dom0)
{
- struct domain *dom0 = hardware_domain;
-
if ( opt_dom0_max_vcpus == 0 )
opt_dom0_max_vcpus = num_online_cpus();
if ( opt_dom0_max_vcpus > MAX_VIRT_CPUS )
--- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
@@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ void __init start_xen(unsigned long boot_phys_offset,
/* Create initial domain 0. */
hardware_domain = dom0 = domain_create(0, 0, 0);
- if ( IS_ERR(dom0) || (alloc_dom0_vcpu0() == NULL) )
+ if ( IS_ERR(dom0) || (alloc_dom0_vcpu0(dom0) == NULL) )
Any reason why a change like this can't be done right away in the
earlier patch introducing the local "dom0" variables, reducing the
overall churn?
Jan
I was trying to restrict the earlier patch to just variable renames,
with this patch covering function names (and prototypes). I could move
this change back, or just merge the patches if "rename dom0->hwdom"
does not end up being an overly large patch.
--
Daniel De Graaf
National Security Agency
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
