On 03/08/16 16:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.07.16 at 11:51, wrote:
>> For the same reason as c/s 33a231e3f "x86/HVM: fold hypercall tables", this
>> removes the risk of accidentally updating only one of the tables.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich
>
> But having
>>> On 18.07.16 at 11:51, wrote:
> For the same reason as c/s 33a231e3f "x86/HVM: fold hypercall tables", this
> removes the risk of accidentally updating only one of the tables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich
But having come here I still can't see why this can't be
