[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 15:30, Andrew Cooper wrote: > 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? Sorry, didn't realize I didn't give one yet with the adjustments made: Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |