Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/34] x86: enclose hvm_op and dm_op in CONFIG_HVM in PV hypercall table

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:59:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 17.08.18 at 17:12, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/hypercall.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/hypercall.c
> > @@ -68,7 +68,9 @@ const hypercall_table_t pv_hypercall_table[] = {
> >  #endif
> >      HYPERCALL(event_channel_op),
> >      COMPAT_CALL(physdev_op),
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
> >      HYPERCALL(hvm_op),
> > +#endif
> >      HYPERCALL(sysctl),
> >      HYPERCALL(domctl),
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
> > @@ -78,7 +80,9 @@ const hypercall_table_t pv_hypercall_table[] = {
> >      HYPERCALL(tmem_op),
> >  #endif
> >      HYPERCALL(xenpmu_op),
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
> >      COMPAT_CALL(dm_op),
> > +#endif
> >      HYPERCALL(mca),
> >      HYPERCALL(arch_1),
> >  };
> 
> Is there anything speaking against putting them both into the same
> single #ifdef?

No.

> Also, what about hypercall_args_table[]?

Stray entries in hypercall_args_table shouldn't cause any harm, but I
agree we should put them under ifdef as well.

Wei.

> 
> Jan
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel