Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next v2 09/10] x86/domain: move PV specific code to pv/domain.c

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:46:53PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/04/17 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 25.04.17 at 16:52, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 25/04/17 14:52, Wei Liu wrote:
> >>> - fail:
> >>> -    pv_domain_destroy(d);
> >>> -
> >>> -    return rc;
> >>> -}
> >>> -
> >>> +void paravirt_ctxt_switch_from(struct vcpu *v);
> >>> +void paravirt_ctxt_switch_to(struct vcpu *v);
> >>>  int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d, unsigned int domcr_flags,
> >>>                         struct xen_arch_domainconfig *config)
> >>>  {
> >>> @@ -1919,7 +1717,8 @@ static void save_segments(struct vcpu *v)
> >>>  
> >>>  #define switch_kernel_stack(v) ((void)0)
> >>>  
> >>> -static void paravirt_ctxt_switch_from(struct vcpu *v)
> >>> +/* Needed by PV guests */
> >>> +void paravirt_ctxt_switch_from(struct vcpu *v)
> >>>  {
> >> Could these be moved up to avoid the forward declarations above?
> > Moved up? I don't see why they're not simply being moved to
> > pv/domain.c and kept static there (suitably placed so that the
> > forward declarations don't need to be retained). As their names
> > say, they're very PV-specific...
> 
> They are also used by idle_csw, whose setup remains in this file.
> 
> To sensibly compile without CONFIG_PV in the future, these either need
> to remain common, or we split the idle vcpu routines away from the PV ones.
> 

I am inclined to split out idle domain routines in the future --
arguably it is going to be of low priority.

Wei.

> ~Andrew

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