Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] minor (formatting) fixes

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/17/2016 11:33 AM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
> On 6/16/2016 7:02 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
>>> b/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
>>> index 014d9ba..05c3027 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/vm_event.h
>>> @@ -23,21 +23,18 @@
>>>   #include <xen/vm_event.h>
>>>   #include <public/domctl.h>
>>>
>>> -static inline
>>> -int vm_event_init_domain(struct domain *d)
>>> +static inline int vm_event_init_domain(struct domain *d)
>>>   {
>>>       /* Nothing to do. */
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>
>>> -static inline
>>> -void vm_event_cleanup_domain(struct domain *d)
>>> +static inline void vm_event_cleanup_domain(struct domain *d)
>>>   {
>>>       memset(&d->monitor, 0, sizeof(d->monitor));
>>>   }
>>>
>>> -static inline
>>> -void vm_event_toggle_singlestep(struct domain *d, struct vcpu *v)
>>> +static inline void vm_event_toggle_singlestep(struct domain *d,
>>> struct vcpu *v)
>>>   {
>>>       /* Not supported on ARM. */
>>>   }
>>> @@ -59,6 +56,9 @@ static inline void
>>> vm_event_fill_regs(vm_event_request_t *req)
>>>       /* Not supported on ARM. */
>>>   }
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Monitor vm-events.
>>> + */
>> I already have an acked patch that relocates monitor-related functions
>> from here and the x86 header to the monitor subsystem
>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9139999/). Generally, I'm trying
>> to keep monitor-related stuff in the appropriately named files, so if
>> you encounter things like this in the future the best course of action
>> is to relocate them. vm_event should be use-case neutral by not having
>> specific things for the monitor subsystem and just be the i/o system
>> used for passing messages.
>>
>>>   static inline uint32_t vm_event_monitor_get_capabilities(struct
>>> domain *d)
>>>   {
>>>       uint32_t capabilities = 0;
> 
> Ah, ok. Didn't that patch make it to staging yet? I pulled the latest.
> Since you already have a patch for that I guess it's ok to remove those
> comments and leave the rest as it is and merge later when one of these
> patches makes it to staging?

I think there's a delay caused by the 4.7 release. I also have an acked
patch waiting to go in that might cause you to have to rebase (part of)
the series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9033771/


Thanks,
Razvan

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