On 03.12.2019 17:37, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:54:35PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.11.2019 12:57, Wei Liu wrote: >>> Also replace reference to xen_guest. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <li...@microsoft.com> >> >> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Thanks. > >> >> However, ... >> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c >>> @@ -700,6 +700,7 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) >>> .max_grant_frames = -1, >>> .max_maptrack_frames = -1, >>> }; >>> + const char *hypervisor_name; >>> >>> /* Critical region without IDT or TSS. Any fault is deadly! */ >>> >>> @@ -763,7 +764,7 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) >>> * allocing any xenheap structures wanted in lower memory. */ >>> kexec_early_calculations(); >>> >>> - hypervisor_probe(); >>> + hypervisor_name = hypervisor_probe(); >> >> ... you no longer calling this function multiple time, why does >> patch 4 still put in a respective guard? > > Remnant from previous iterations. > > I can submit a follow-up patch to drop that -- do really want to > invalidate all the reviews and acks I got so far.
According to my records patch 4 had no acks except mine, which you could keep with this change (in fact I was thinking of making it dependent upon the dropping of this leftover). Subsequent patches may only need re-basing, which doesn't imply dropping of any acks. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
