On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:48:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 17.04.17 at 21:09, <eric.devol...@oracle.com> wrote: > > --- a/xen/common/kexec.c > > +++ b/xen/common/kexec.c > > @@ -50,9 +50,10 @@ static cpumask_t crash_saved_cpus; > > > > static struct kexec_image *kexec_image[KEXEC_IMAGE_NR]; > > > > -#define KEXEC_FLAG_DEFAULT_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 0) > > -#define KEXEC_FLAG_CRASH_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 1) > > -#define KEXEC_FLAG_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 2) > > +#define KEXEC_FLAG_DEFAULT_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 0) > > +#define KEXEC_FLAG_CRASH_POS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 1) > > +#define KEXEC_FLAG_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 2) > > +#define KEXEC_FLAG_HC_IN_PROGRESS (KEXEC_IMAGE_NR + 3) > > Perhaps KEXEC_FLAG_IN_HYPERCALL? Other than that (and this
Make sense for me. > clearly is subject to Andrew's opinion) > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Otherwise Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
