Hi Daniel,

I hope outlook gets this reply right.

> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: [PATCH v1 04/18] x86: refactor entrypoints to new boot info

> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/guest/xen/pvh-boot.c
> b/xen/arch/x86/guest/xen/pvh-boot.c
> index 834b1ad16b..28cf5df0a3 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/guest/xen/pvh-boot.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/guest/xen/pvh-boot.c

> @@ -99,13 +118,16 @@ static void __init get_memory_map(void)
>      sanitize_e820_map(e820_raw.map, &e820_raw.nr_map);
>  }
>
> -void __init pvh_init(multiboot_info_t **mbi, module_t **mod)
> +void __init pvh_init(struct boot_info **bi)
>  {
> -    convert_pvh_info(mbi, mod);
> +    *bi = init_pvh_info();
> +    convert_pvh_info(*bi);
>
>      hypervisor_probe();
>      ASSERT(xen_guest);
>
> +    (*bi)->arch->xen_guest = xen_guest;

I think you may have a typo/missed refactoring here?
I changed this line to "(*bi)->arch->xenguest = xen_guest;" to get the 
patchset to build.

The arch_boot_info struct in boot_info32.h has a field 'xen_guest' but the 
same field in asm/bootinfo.h was re-named from 'xen_guest' to 'xenguest' in 
the 'x86: adopt new boot info structures' commit.

What was your intent?

> +
>      get_memory_map();
>  }
>

Thanks,
Jackson Smith

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to