>>> On 17.11.16 at 06:21, <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:34 PM >> >>> On 16.11.16 at 14:01, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > On 16/11/16 12:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>>>> On 16.11.16 at 13:31, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> This reduces the net complexity of CPUID handling by having all >> >>> adjustments in >> >>> at the same place. Remove the now-unused vpmu_do_cpuid() infrastructure. >> >> I have to admit that I'm not convinced this is a good idea at this point, >> >> due to the added redundancy. Iirc your plan is to combine hvm_cpuid() >> >> and pv_cpuid() anyway, at which point the folding done here would be >> >> quite a bit more natural. >> > >> > Indeed, to guest_cpuid(). >> > >> > It is far easier to reason about the safety of both changes by first >> > untangling the calltree, then merging the functions. I tried it the >> > other way first, but that is far more complicated change. >> >> Well, let's see what others think. > > I'm fine with this change, as long as it paves a clear incremental way > towards final guest_cpuid. > > Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>
Okay then - Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
