Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next v2 05/10] x86/domain: factor out pv_vcpu_initialise

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:08:23PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/04/17 14:52, Wei Liu wrote:
> > Move PV specific vcpu initialisation code to said function, but leave
> > the only line needed by idle domain in vcpu_initialise.
> >
> > Use pv_vcpu_destroy in error path to simplify code. It is safe to do so
> > because the destruction function accepts partially initialised vcpu
> > struct.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  xen/arch/x86/domain.c | 99 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > index cde0917f5b..38fc4f5d8b 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > @@ -398,6 +398,50 @@ static void pv_destroy_gdt_ldt_l1tab(struct domain *d, 
> > struct vcpu *v)
> >      destroy_perdomain_mapping(d, GDT_VIRT_START(v), 1 << 
> > GDT_LDT_VCPU_SHIFT);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void pv_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v);
> 
> If in the previous patch, you create pv_vcpu_destroy() earlier than
> vcpu_initialise(), you wouldn't need this forward declaration here.
> 

Yeah I know. I chose to rearranged them in the patch that moved pv code
instead, because rebasing huge chunk of code is error-prone.

> Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel