>>> On 06.11.15 at 17:05, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -5143,6 +5143,7 @@ static hvm_hypercall_t *const
> hvm_hypercall64_table[NR_hypercalls] = {
> HYPERCALL(sysctl),
> HYPERCALL(domctl),
> HYPERCALL(tmem_op),
> + HYPERCALL(xenpmu_op),
> [ __HYPERVISOR_arch_1 ] = (hvm_hypercall_t *)paging_domctl_continuation
> };
>
> @@ -5164,6 +5165,7 @@ static hvm_hypercall_t *const
> hvm_hypercall32_table[NR_hypercalls] = {
> HYPERCALL(sysctl),
> HYPERCALL(domctl),
> HYPERCALL(tmem_op),
> + HYPERCALL(xenpmu_op),
> [ __HYPERVISOR_arch_1 ] = (hvm_hypercall_t *)paging_domctl_continuation
> };
I don't think this should be done now; instead this should imo be an
effect of eventually folding the two tables. With this dropped
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
