>>> On 04.10.18 at 17:43, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
> @@ -509,8 +509,16 @@ int __init construct_dom0(struct domain *d, const
> module_t *image,
> }
> #endif
>
> - rc = (is_hvm_domain(d) ? dom0_construct_pvh : dom0_construct_pv)
> - (d, image, image_headroom, initrd, cmdline);
> + if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
> + rc = dom0_construct_pvh(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, cmdline);
> + else if ( is_pv_domain(d) )
> + rc = dom0_construct_pv(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, cmdline);
> + else
> + {
> + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> + rc = -EINVAL;
> + }
Depending on what the plans are wrt simultaneous PV=n and HVM=n,
this may better need to be panic(). The assertion is certainly not valid
in that case - it is very much expected to get there in such a case. It
is only valid if the Kconfig change doesn't allow for that combination.
In any event I see that patch 13 doesn't change the code above
again.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
