[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/pv: Short-circuit is_pv_{32,64}bit_domain() in !CONFIG_PV32 builds
On 29/04/2020 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 29.04.2020 15:13, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 20/04/2020 15:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 17.04.2020 17:50, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c >>>> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 1; >>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = 1; >>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = 1; >>>> >>>> for_each_vcpu( d, v ) >>>> { >>>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> undo_and_fail: >>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>>> for_each_vcpu( d, v ) >>>> { >>>> free_compat_arg_xlat(v); >>>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *d) >>>> d->arch.ctxt_switch = &pv_csw; >>>> >>>> /* 64-bit PV guest by default. */ >>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>> Switch to true/false while you're touching these? >> Yes, but I'm tempted to delete these lines in the final hunk. Its >> writing zeros into a zeroed structures. > Oh, yes, agreed. Can I take this as an ack then? ~Andrew
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |