Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvh: Fix regression caused by assumption that HVM paths MUST use io-backend device.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 04.02.14 at 16:32, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:02:44PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Wasn't it that Mukesh's patch simply was yours with the two
>> get_ioreq()s folded by using a local variable?
> 
> Yes. As so

Thanks. Except that ...

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vvmx.c
> @@ -1394,13 +1394,13 @@ void nvmx_switch_guest(void)
>      struct vcpu *v = current;
>      struct nestedvcpu *nvcpu = &vcpu_nestedhvm(v);
>      struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs();
> -
> +    ioreq_t *p = get_ioreq(v);

... you don't want to drop the blank line, and naming the new
variable "ioreq" would seem preferable.

>      /*
>       * a pending IO emualtion may still no finished. In this case,
>       * no virtual vmswith is allowed. Or else, the following IO
>       * emulation will handled in a wrong VCPU context.
>       */
> -    if ( get_ioreq(v)->state != STATE_IOREQ_NONE )
> +    if ( p && p->state != STATE_IOREQ_NONE )

And, as said before, I'd think "!p ||" instead of "p &&" would be
the right thing here. Yang, Jun?

Jan


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