On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 12.02.16 at 13:50, <tleng...@novetta.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2016 03:41, "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> In which case ASSERT(is_hvm_vcpu(curr)) would be the common > >> way to document this (at once avoiding the open coding of > >> is_hvm_vcpu()). > >> > > > > I don't think we need an assert here. The function is fine for pv guests > as > > well up to that point. Filling in the rest of the registers for pv guests > > can be done when pv events are implemented. Maybe a comment saying so is > > warranted. > > I disagree: Either you mean to support PV in the function, in which > case all fields should be filled, or you don't, in which case the > ASSERT() would at once document that PV is intended to not be > supported right now. With the conditional as in your patch any > future reader may either think "bug" or get confused as to the > actual intentions here. > Alright, sounds good to me. Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
