Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/4] xen/xsm: Add xsm_core_init function

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.03.14 at 15:02, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On 03/21/2014 01:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 21.03.14 at 14:05, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/xsm/xsm_core.c
>>> +++ b/xen/xsm/xsm_core.c
>>> @@ -43,6 +43,21 @@ static void __init do_xsm_initcalls(void)
>>>      }
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static int __init xsm_core_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    if ( verify(&dummy_xsm_ops) )
>>> +    {
>>> +        printk("%s could not verify "
>>> +               "dummy_xsm_ops structure.\n", __FUNCTION__);
>>> +        return -EIO;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    xsm_ops = &dummy_xsm_ops;
>>> +    do_xsm_initcalls();
>>> +
>>> +    return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_MULTIBOOT
>>>  int __init xsm_multiboot_init(unsigned long *module_map,
>>>                                const multiboot_info_t *mbi,
>>> @@ -63,16 +78,7 @@ int __init xsm_multiboot_init(unsigned long *module_map,
>>>          }
>>>      }
>>>  
>>> -    if ( verify(&dummy_xsm_ops) )
>>> -    {
>>> -        bootstrap_map(NULL);
>> 
>> So where did that call go?
> 
> After xsm_core_init (see below).
> 
>>> -        printk("%s could not verify "
>>> -               "dummy_xsm_ops structure.\n", __FUNCTION__);
>>> -        return -EIO;
>>> -    }
>>> -
>>> -    xsm_ops = &dummy_xsm_ops;
>>> -    do_xsm_initcalls();
>>> +    ret = xsm_core_init();
>>>      bootstrap_map(NULL);
> 
> Just here.

Oh, right, you're just folding both paths as far as this function is
concerned. That's fine then of course.

Jan


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