Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v12 07/21] pvh: Disable unneeded features of HVM containers

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.09.13 at 18:25, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -368,6 +375,7 @@ void hvm_do_resume(struct vcpu *v)
>          }
>      }
>  
> +  check_inject_trap:

Labels are commonly indented by just one space.

> @@ -521,6 +529,7 @@ int hvm_domain_initialise(struct domain *d)
>          return -EINVAL;
>      }
>  
> +    /* PVH: pbut_lock and uc_lock unused, but won't hurt */
>      spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.pbuf_lock);
>      spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock);
>      spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.uc_lock);

Typo (pbuf_lock). But the comment is pretty pointless anyway.
And if any future patch starts using either of the mentioned
locks, it'll likely forget to update the comment (and hence it get
stale).

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> @@ -175,6 +175,10 @@ int handle_mmio(void)
>      struct hvm_vcpu_io *vio = &curr->arch.hvm_vcpu.hvm_io;
>      int rc;
>  
> +    /* No MMIO for PVH vcpus */
> +    if ( is_pvh_vcpu(curr) )
> +        return 0;
> +

So why does hvm_pio() not get adjusted similarly?

Jan


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