On 19/10/18 15:28, Wei Liu wrote:
> This is a bit more complicated than the HVM case because system
> domains have PV guest type. Leave them like that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>
> ---
> v2:
> 1. Remove useless ASSERTs.
> 2. Rewrite comment.
> ---
>  xen/common/domain.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c
> index 65151e2..fc09088 100644
> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> @@ -322,17 +322,36 @@ struct domain *domain_create(domid_t domid,
>      }
>  
>      /* Sort out our idea of is_{pv,hvm}_domain(). */
> -    if ( config && (config->flags & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm_guest) )
> +    if ( config )
>      {
> +        if ( config->flags & XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm_guest)

Space at the end.

> +        {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HVM
> -        d->guest_type = guest_type_hvm;
> +            d->guest_type = guest_type_hvm;
> +#else
> +            err = -EINVAL;
> +            goto fail;
> +#endif
> +        }
> +        else
> +        {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV
> +        d->guest_type = guest_type_pv;
>  #else
>          err = -EINVAL;
>          goto fail;

Indentation to match the HVM case?

Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to