On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 12:46 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > This is a follow of commit 90f2e2a307fc6a6258c39cc87b3b2bf9441c0fa7 "use > masking operation instead of test_bit for MCSF bits" where the ARM > changes were missing. > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@citrix.com>
Acked + applied. > --- > xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c > index 880d0a6..1b0f9eb 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c > @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ void hypercall_cancel_continuation(void) > struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs(); > struct mc_state *mcs = ¤t->mc_state; > > - if ( test_bit(_MCSF_in_multicall, &mcs->flags) ) > + if ( mcs->flags & MCSF_in_multicall ) > { > __clear_bit(_MCSF_call_preempted, &mcs->flags); > } > @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ unsigned long hypercall_create_continuation( > > va_start(args, format); > > - if ( test_bit(_MCSF_in_multicall, &mcs->flags) ) > + if ( mcs->flags & MCSF_in_multicall ) > { > __set_bit(_MCSF_call_preempted, &mcs->flags); > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel