On 16/04/15 17:37, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 12:32 +0100 on 16 Apr (1429187564), Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 16.04.15 at 12:53, <t...@xen.org> wrote: >>> I would be inclined to use a bigger hammer here. IMO refactoring like >>> this makes it easier to reason about (compile tested only): >> This looks like a pretty nice cleanup; I particularly like the 4 labels >> going away. > OK, here it is as a proper patch. I still haven't tested it -- indeed > I'm not sure how to test multiple ioreq clients. Any suggestions? > > From 67957b954f2b8d58b635a8e5fdc818154ec9e4ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org> > Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:34:24 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] x86/hvm: refactor code that allocates ioreq gfns. > > It was confusing GCC's uninitialized-variable detection. > > Signed-off-by: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
