>>> On 30.09.16 at 10:32, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:45:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 27.09.16 at 17:57, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: >> > It doesn't make sense since the idle domain doesn't receive any events. >> >> The change itself is fine, but I think it would help if the commit >> message made explicit why this is becoming relevant. > > Done. I've added: > > "This is relevant in order to be sure that hypercall_preempt_check is not > called by the idle domain." > > To the commit message.
This is only part of it imo - I think it would help more if you clarified how you got there in the first place all of the sudden. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
