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

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/08/13 23:37, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:10:27 +0100
> George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:14 AM, George Dunlap
> > <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 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()."
> > > I said *exact function*.  guest_kernel_mode() doesn't need it
> > > non-const; it needs it because of a function that it calls.  That
> > > in turn doesn't need it non-const either -- it needs it because of
> > > the next one down.  Who *actually* needs vcpu to be non-const, way
> > > down at the bottom?  That's what I need to know to understand why
> > > we can't just change each of those functions to const all the way
> > > down.
> > The general principle here is that you have already done the work of
> > tracing through the code to figure out what's going on; you should
> > cache that information in the commit log so that reviewers (and people
> > doing archaeology) don't need to duplicate the effort.
> I can't remember exact function that can't allow const, but there
> are tons of leaf calls being passed v. Anyways, I'll recreate the
> crime scene, and put in the comment log.
I appreciate it, thanks.

 -George


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