On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 18.02.16 at 20:35, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > xen/arch/arm/hvm.c | 8 +++ > > xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c | 116 > ++++++---------------------------------- > > xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 1 + > > xen/arch/x86/monitor.c | 14 ----- > > xen/arch/x86/vm_event.c | 1 + > > xen/common/Makefile | 2 +- > > xen/common/hvm/Makefile | 3 +- > > xen/common/hvm/event.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > So here you _again_ try to introduce something HVM-ish for ARM. > Why? Why can't this code live in common/vm_event.c? > I too am wondering if this is the right way to architect this. It would be better to move the guest-requested stuff into the generic vm_event component as it doesn't seem to be HVM specific other then it using an HVMOP hypercall to be triggered. Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
