>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:14, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/17 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:00, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>> Created arch/x86/hvm/vm_event.c and include/asm-x86/hvm/vm_event.h,
>>> where HVM-specific vm_event-related code will live. This cleans up
>>> hvm_do_resume() and ensures that the vm_event maintainers are
>>> responsible for changes to that code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
>>> Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> albeit I wonder ...
>>
>>> +void hvm_vm_event_do_resume(struct vcpu *v)
>>> +{
>>> + struct monitor_write_data *w;
>>> +
>>> + if ( likely(!v->arch.vm_event) )
>>> + return;
>>
>> ... whether this now wouldn't better be an ASSERT().
>
> I have no objections (can this be done on commit or should I re-send V4?).
Let's first see what Tamas thinks. If he agrees, I see not problem
doing the adjustment while committing.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
