On 12.12.18 14:44, Julien Grall wrote:
At the moment, I am happy with the second chunk of this patch to go. I am still
unconvinced #1 is the right thing to go.
I got it. So keep the patch still for now.
I plan to send separately patches you have reviewed first. Then evaluate the
rest with
Hi Andrii,
On 12/12/2018 12:35, Andrii Anisov wrote:
On 12.12.18 14:07, Julien Grall wrote:
This chunk relies on patch #1, am I correct?
For sure, it is.
If so, this should be written in the commit message that this was introduced
recently.
This helps to figure out whether the patch can
On 12.12.18 14:07, Julien Grall wrote:
This chunk relies on patch #1, am I correct?
For sure, it is.
If so, this should be written in the commit message that this was introduced
recently.
This helps to figure out whether the patch can be merged before the rest.
Do you mean I can prepare
Hi,
On 28/11/2018 21:32, Andrii Anisov wrote:
From: Andrii Anisov
Those fucntions are called under IRQs disabled already, so avoid
s/fucntions/
additional flags saving and restore.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Anisov
---
xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+
From: Andrii Anisov
Those fucntions are called under IRQs disabled already, so avoid
additional flags saving and restore.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Anisov
---
xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic-vgic.c b/xen/arch/a
