On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.11.14 at 16:31, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>
> Leaving aside the general reservation I just voiced in reply to 0/7, I
> wonder whether - considering that you mostly replace the code
> th
>>> On 12.11.14 at 16:31, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
Leaving aside the general reservation I just voiced in reply to 0/7, I
wonder whether - considering that you mostly replace the code
that gets changed in this file - it wouldn't be a nice opportunity to
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 12/11/14 15:31, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > diff --git a/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
> b/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
> > index 599f9e8..c0e9394 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
On 12/11/14 15:31, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> diff --git a/xen/include/public/mem_event.h b/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
> index 599f9e8..c0e9394 100644
> --- a/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/mem_event.h
> @@ -49,15 +49,19 @@
> #define MEM_EVENT_FLAG_EMULATE_NOWRITE (1 <
From: Razvan Cojocaru
The public mem_event structures used to communicate with helper applications via
shared rings have been used in different settings. However, the variable names
within this structure have not reflected this fact, resulting in the reuse of
variables to mean different things un
