Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 5/16]: PVH xen: supporting changes.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.01.13 at 00:41, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:27:15 +0000 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On 12.01.13 at 02:48, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > In this patch, we make pv_cpuid() and emulate_forced_invalid_op()
>> > public to be used by PVH. Also put vmx functions like vmr(),
>> > get_instruction_length(), inlined in header file to be used by PVH.
>> > No real code change.
>> 
>> As these functions are VMX-specific, I think they ought to get
>> renamed to express that. However, the mere fact that you
>> intend to use VMX functions outside of VMX code looks wrong.
> 
> Not sure what you are referring to. The functions vmr,
> get_instruction_length(), etc..  are called from VMX code, ie,
> vmx_pvh.c. I'll rename them with vmx_ prefix.

That's fine then (perhaps even without the rename if the
declarations sit in a header _only_ included by VMX code).

> The two functions, pv_cpuid and emulate_forced_invalid_op are not vmx
> specific, they are called from non vmx code, ie, PV also. So renaming
> them doesn't make sense IMO. Recall, PVH is a PV guest.

Sure - these ones I didn't have in mind.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel