>>> On 08.02.17 at 11:44, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/17 10:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> This results in rather more readable code. No functional change.
>>
>> All fields currently specified are included, but commented out as no support
>> for their use is present.
>
> Apologies - sent a slightly stale version of the patch. I have dropped
> this paragraph from the commit message, but the code is correct for v2.
With that and despite ...
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> CC: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>
>> CC: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>
>>
>> v2:
>> * Use a transparent union rather than modifying the caller of
>> ept_handle_violation()
>> * Drop the extranious commented out bitfield names, but keep eff_user_exec
>> so
>> gla_{valid,fault} are appropriately located.
... this not really being what Kevin and I had asked for,
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
