On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
This is because we want abort enabled when the "feature" is not present.
This series looks good so far, so I would be happy if you send a
follow-up patch to add the ASSERT rather than modifying this patch.
I will send a follow-up patch after this series has been done.
Well, you have to resend this series. So why don't you add the ASSERT in
the new version?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
