On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 25.08.17 at 15:00, <aisa...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >> On Vi, 2017-08-25 at 06:13 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On 17.08.17 at 13:50, <aisa...@bitdefender.com> wrote: >>> > --- a/xen/common/monitor.c >>> > +++ b/xen/common/monitor.c >>> > @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ int monitor_domctl(struct domain *d, struct >>> > xen_domctl_monitor_op *mop) >>> > domain_pause(d); >>> > d->monitor.guest_request_sync = mop->u.guest_request.sync; >>> > d->monitor.guest_request_enabled = requested_status; >>> > + d->arch.monitor.guest_request_userspace_enabled = mop- >>> > >u.guest_request.allow_userspace; >>> This breaks the build on ARM. >> There are 2 solutions, I can move the case in x86/monitor.c in >> the arch_monitor_domctl_event function or I can make a arch specific >> function that does the assignment in the x86 case and does nothing in >> the arm case. What approach do you prefer? > > That's a question to the maintainers of that code. What I care > about is that patches touching common code please are at least > build-checked on the other architecture before submission. >
Ough, yes, please build-check your code on both architectures before sending them. As for which route to take I prefer in this case doing the arch specific function that does the assignment when needed and is empty when not. The function itself could probably be declared as static inline too. Tamas _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
