Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v14 03/17] pvh prep: code motion

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/11/13 16:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 04.11.13 at 13:14, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > @@ -522,27 +522,27 @@ int hvm_domain_initialise(struct domain *d)
> >       spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock);
> >       spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.uc_lock);
> >   
> > -    INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->arch.hvm_domain.msixtbl_list);
> > -    spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.msixtbl_list_lock);
> While I can see the need for moving stuff so that it gets done
> earlier - why do these two lines need to be moved _down_?
> Even if PVH wasn't using the MSI-X support code HVM needs,
> I can't see them doing any harm.
Right -- sorry, when shuffling things around a lot (which I did while 
trying to figure out how I had broken HVM guests in v13) you miss this 
sort of thing.  I'll un-do this hunk.
 -George

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