>>> On 15.02.17 at 12:34, wrote:
> On 15/02/17 08:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.02.17 at 16:26, wrote:
>>> On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -2066,6 +2073,15 @@ static void __context_switch(void)
per_cpu(curr_vcpu, cpu) = n;
}
+/*
+ * Schedule tai
On 15/02/17 08:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.02.17 at 16:26, wrote:
>> On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -2066,6 +2073,15 @@ static void __context_switch(void)
>>> per_cpu(curr_vcpu, cpu) = n;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Schedule tail *should* be a terminal function pointer, b
>>> On 14.02.17 at 16:26, wrote:
> On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -2066,6 +2073,15 @@ static void __context_switch(void)
>> per_cpu(curr_vcpu, cpu) = n;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Schedule tail *should* be a terminal function pointer, but leave a
>> bugframe
>> + * around just inc
On 02/14/2017 05:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
They're all solely dependent on guest type, so we don't need to repeat
all the same four pointers in every vCPU control structure. Instead use
static const structures, and store pointers to them in the domain
control structure.
Since touching it anywa
On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> They're all solely dependent on guest type, so we don't need to repeat
> all the same four pointers in every vCPU control structure. Instead use
> static const structures, and store pointers to them in the domain
> control structure.
>
> Since touching it any
They're all solely dependent on guest type, so we don't need to repeat
all the same four pointers in every vCPU control structure. Instead use
static const structures, and store pointers to them in the domain
control structure.
Since touching it anyway, take the opportunity and move schedule_tail(
