On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/22/2015 12:13 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > > On 10/21/2015 09:00 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h > > > > > > b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h > > > > > > index d866959..8b2d4be 100644 > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h > > > > > > @@ -57,4 +57,9 @@ static inline bool xen_x2apic_para_available(void) > > > > > > } > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > > > > > > +void xen_arch_register_cpu(int num); > > > > > > +void xen_arch_unregister_cpu(int num); > > > > > > +#endif > > > > Why not inline them here, just like you did for ARM? > > > I don't think is good practice to define static inline functions under > > > arch/something, then use them under drivers/something_else. It is > > > tolerable if the static inline functions are empty and the driver in > > > question cannot be compiled as module, like in this case for the arm. > > > > > > In addition the x86 implementation calls arch_(un)register_cpu, which > > > requires #include <asm/cpu.h>, which doesn't compile if added to > > > arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h. > > Boris, does this explanation satisfy you? > > Do you want me to change anything? > > Sorry, I forgot to respond! > > Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com>
Fantatic, thank you! I'll apply to for-linus-4.4. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
