It's a matter of taste to some degree. Unless patches are really
involved, I prefer them not to add dead code. Apart from
eliminating the case of the code remaining dead (perhaps for
extended periods of time) if only parts of a series get applied, it
also generally helps review if one can see the
Note actually we just need p2m_remove_page() to unmap these mapping on
both ept and vt-d sides, and guest_physmap_remove_page is really a
wrapper of p2m_remove_page().
And I agree with Tim regarding the desire to avoid code duplication.
Yet that's no reason to do it asymmetrically:
On 24.06.15 at 03:11, tiejun.c...@intel.com wrote:
On 2015/6/23 18:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.06.15 at 11:57, tiejun.c...@intel.com wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct
On 23.06.15 at 11:57, tiejun.c...@intel.com wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d,
bool_t map,
while ( base_pfn end_pfn )
{
-
On 2015/6/23 18:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.06.15 at 11:57, tiejun.c...@intel.com wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ static int rmrr_identity_mapping(struct domain *d, bool_t
map,
while ( base_pfn
