[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/7] xen: rename various functions referencing dom0
>>> On 19.03.14 at 16:25, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/19/2014 05:13 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 18.03.14 at 22:34, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >>> @@ -50,10 +50,8 @@ custom_param("dom0_mem", parse_dom0_mem); >>> */ >>> #define DOM0_FDT_EXTRA_SIZE (128 + sizeof(struct fdt_reserve_entry)) >>> >>> -struct vcpu *__init alloc_dom0_vcpu0(void) >>> +struct vcpu *__init alloc_dom0_vcpu0(struct domain *dom0) >>> { >>> - struct domain *dom0 = hardware_domain; >>> - >>> if ( opt_dom0_max_vcpus == 0 ) >>> opt_dom0_max_vcpus = num_online_cpus(); >>> if ( opt_dom0_max_vcpus > MAX_VIRT_CPUS ) >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c >>> @@ -759,7 +759,7 @@ void __init start_xen(unsigned long boot_phys_offset, >>> >>> /* Create initial domain 0. */ >>> hardware_domain = dom0 = domain_create(0, 0, 0); >>> - if ( IS_ERR(dom0) || (alloc_dom0_vcpu0() == NULL) ) >>> + if ( IS_ERR(dom0) || (alloc_dom0_vcpu0(dom0) == NULL) ) >> >> Any reason why a change like this can't be done right away in the >> earlier patch introducing the local "dom0" variables, reducing the >> overall churn? > > I was trying to restrict the earlier patch to just variable renames, > with this patch covering function names (and prototypes). I could move > this change back, or just merge the patches if "rename dom0->hwdom" > does not end up being an overly large patch. I'd suggest keeping them separate, but avoid the second one re-writing what the first one touched already, i.e. move over just this kind of change. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |