On 08/02/17 11:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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>
In which case I am confused? What were you asking for if it isn't this?
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
