Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/7] x86/hvm: Rename v->arch.hvm_vcpu to v->arch.hvm

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.08.18 at 19:39, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 28.08.18 at 19:39, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The trailing _vcpu suffix is redundant, but adds to code volume.  Drop it.
> 
> Reflow lines as appropriate, and switch to using the new XFREE/etc wrappers
> where applicable.

I couldn't find any such conversion, so perhaps better to delete that
part of the description.

> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

> @@ -3888,19 +3886,19 @@ void hvm_vcpu_reset_state(struct vcpu *v, uint16_t 
> cs, uint16_t ip)
>      v->arch.user_regs.rip = ip;
>      memset(&v->arch.debugreg, 0, sizeof(v->arch.debugreg));
>  
> -    v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_cr[0] = X86_CR0_ET;
> +    v->arch.hvm.guest_cr[0] = X86_CR0_ET;
>      hvm_update_guest_cr(v, 0);
>  
> -    v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_cr[2] = 0;
> +    v->arch.hvm.guest_cr[2] = 0;
>      hvm_update_guest_cr(v, 2);
>  
> -    v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_cr[3] = 0;
> +    v->arch.hvm.guest_cr[3] = 0;
>      hvm_update_guest_cr(v, 3);
>  
> -    v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_cr[4] = 0;
> +    v->arch.hvm.guest_cr[4] = 0;
>      hvm_update_guest_cr(v, 4);
>  
> -    v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_efer = 0;
> +    v->arch.hvm.guest_efer = 0;
>      hvm_update_guest_efer(v);

Noticing this, a thought unrelated to this series: Wouldn't we be better off
setting all the structure fields first, and only then invoke all the functions?
Just like arch_set_info_hvm_guest() does?

Jan



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