[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] PATCH: remove is_vti
Hi Tristan, I have two questions. >diff -r 32ec5dbe2978 -r c5ffe6158794 xen/arch/ia64/xen/dom0_ops.c >--- a/xen/arch/ia64/xen/dom0_ops.c Fri Nov 30 08:54:33 2007 -0700 >+++ b/xen/arch/ia64/xen/dom0_ops.c Mon Dec 03 06:45:23 2007 +0100 >@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl(xen_domctl_t *op, XE > > if (ds->flags & XEN_DOMAINSETUP_query) { > /* Set flags. */ >- if (d->arch.is_vti) >+ if (is_hvm_domain (d)) > ds->flags |= XEN_DOMAINSETUP_hvm_guest; > /* Set params. */ > ds->bp = 0; /* unknown. */ >@@ -104,12 +104,13 @@ long arch_do_domctl(xen_domctl_t *op, XE > ret = -EFAULT; > } > else { >- if (ds->flags & XEN_DOMAINSETUP_hvm_guest) { >+ if (is_hvm_domain (d) >+ || (ds->flags & XEN_DOMAINSETUP_hvm_guest)) { Why should we check both flags? Is XEN_DOMAINSETUP_hvm_guest flag for xm restore command? > if (!vmx_enabled) { > printk("No VMX hardware feature for vmx domain.\n"); > ret = -EINVAL; > } else { >- d->arch.is_vti = 1; >+ d->is_hvm = 1; Why should we set is_hvm flag? I think that is_hvm flag was already set in domain_create(). > xen_ia64_set_convmem_end(d, ds->maxmem); > ret = vmx_setup_platform(d); > } Best regards, Kan Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:46:19 +0100, tgingold@xxxxxxx wrote: >Hi, > >in fact is_vti is a duplicate of is_hvm. This patch remove the ia64 is_vti >flag. > >Tristan. > >-------------------------------text/plain------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Xen-ia64-devel mailing list >Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |