Re: [Xen-devel] [V10 PATCH 08/23] PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type and some basic changes.

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 13:06:37 +0100
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>> On 06.08.13 at 13:29, George Dunlap
> >>>> <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Mukesh Rathor
> >> <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c
> >>> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ void show_registers(struct cpu_user_regs
> >>> *regs) }
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>> -void vcpu_show_registers(const struct vcpu *v)
> >>> +void vcpu_show_registers(struct vcpu *v)
> >>
> >> Rather than doing this (which could potentially mask a bug in which
> >> something actually *does* get changed),  wouldn't it make more
> >> sense to make hvm_kernel_mode (and hvm_get_segment_register) be
> >> const?
> >
> > That's what I suggested first too, but which turned out not to
> > work: Down the call tree there is a use of v where a pointer to
> > non-const is required (iirc in VMX specific code).
> 
> Then the changelog should say that, preferably the exact function
> where non-const is needed, so people know why that's necessary without
> having to do their own looking.

And the changelog does say it:

"Note, we drop the const qualifier from vcpu_show_registers() to 
 accomodate the hvm function call in guest_kernel_mode()."

-Mukesh


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