>
> I don't feel very strongly about it, so if you really prefer you can
> keep the code as it is, however this looks somewhat counterintuitive to
> me, especially when you compare the new condition to the old one, because
> ...
>
Yea, this patch is not critical. Jan just requested to use a wrapper for
hvm_funcs in the other patch so I figured I might as well fix it everywhere
in our code. It's pretty minor stuff.
>
> > - }
> > else
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > } else
> > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
> b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
> > index aa8ab8d..9128dff 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
> > @@ -514,6 +514,17 @@ static inline enum hvm_intblk
> nhvm_interrupt_blocked(struct vcpu *v)
> > return hvm_funcs.nhvm_intr_blocked(v);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline int hvm_enable_msr_exit_interception(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > + if ( hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception )
> > + {
> > + hvm_funcs.enable_msr_exit_interception(d);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -ENOSYS;
> > +}
> > +
>
> ... I can see no reason why this function should not return bool_t, and
> return 1 where it now returns 0, and 0 where it now returns -ENOSYS.
>
SGTM.
Thanks,
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
