On 2019/1/15 21:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.01.19 at 13:49, <pu...@hygon.cn> wrote:
On 2019/1/15 0:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.12.18 at 14:12, <pu...@hygon.cn> wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ static int vpmu_arch_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
switch ( vendor )
{
+ case X86_VENDOR_HYGON:
case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
ret = svm_vpmu_initialise(v);
break;
@@ -890,6 +891,7 @@ static int __init vpmu_init(void)
switch ( vendor )
{
+ case X86_VENDOR_HYGON:
case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
if ( amd_vpmu_init() )
vpmu_mode = XENPMU_MODE_OFF;
Here and everywhere else, may I ask that you do your insertions
below the respective AMD ones instead of above?
In all the switch cases, if Hygon directly followed AMD's cases, the
insertions are placed above the respective AMD ones.
As said - please don't, insert the new ones after AMD's.
OK. Will insert the new ones after AMD's in next version patch set.
--
Regards,
Pu Wen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
