At 15:25 + on 28 Jan (1422455118), Jan Beulich wrote:
> To make obvious that such statics are safe to use, they should be
> const. In some of the cases, they don't even need to be static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Happy to have the consts, but please keep the statics, to make it
clear t
On 28/01/15 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> To make obvious that such statics are safe to use, they should be
> const. In some of the cases, they don't even need to be static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm
To make obvious that such statics are safe to use, they should be
const. In some of the cases, they don't even need to be static.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c
@@ -2164,7 +2164,7 @@ int sh_remove_write_access(struct vcpu *
