>>> On 04.09.15 at 14:08, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: Hmm - this seems questionable to me: Isn't the vPMU an optional feature anyway? I.e. doesn't need separate handling here? Boris?
Jan > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> > Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > --- > Changes since v4: > - Add Andrew Cooper Acked-by. > --- > xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c > index 8af3df1..d5bb77d 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c > @@ -439,6 +439,9 @@ void vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v) > int ret; > bool_t is_priv_vpmu = is_hardware_domain(v->domain); > > + if ( !has_vpmu(v->domain) ) > + return; > + > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct xen_pmu_intel_ctxt) > XENPMU_CTXT_PAD_SZ); > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct xen_pmu_amd_ctxt) > XENPMU_CTXT_PAD_SZ); > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct xen_pmu_regs) > XENPMU_REGS_PAD_SZ); > -- > 1.9.5 (Apple Git-50.3) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
