On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:14, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> On 05/04/17 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:00, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>>>> Created arch/x86/hvm/vm_event.c and include/asm-x86/hvm/vm_event.h,
>>>> where HVM-specific vm_event-related code will live. This cleans up
>>>> hvm_do_resume() and ensures that the vm_event maintainers are
>>>> responsible for changes to that code.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>>> albeit I wonder ...
>>>
>>>> +void hvm_vm_event_do_resume(struct vcpu *v)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct monitor_write_data *w;
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( likely(!v->arch.vm_event) )
>>>> + return;
>>>
>>> ... whether this now wouldn't better be an ASSERT().
>>
>> I have no objections (can this be done on commit or should I re-send V4?).
>
> Let's first see what Tamas thinks. If he agrees, I see not problem
> doing the adjustment while committing.
I'm not quite sure how converting that to an ASSERT would work. It
looks fine to me as is tbh.
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
