>>> On 23.02.17 at 12:52, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote: > @@ -204,8 +205,7 @@ static void vioapic_write_indirect( > break; > } > > - vioapic_write_redirent( > - vioapic, redir_index, vioapic->ioregsel&1, val); > + vioapic_write_redirent(d, redir_index, vioapic->ioregsel&1, val);
Please correct obvious coding style violations in cases like this. Of course here it can be taken care of while committing. > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ static int vioapic_write( > break; > > case VIOAPIC_REG_WINDOW: > - vioapic_write_indirect(vioapic, val); > + vioapic_write_indirect(v->domain, val); I'll assume this will clarify itself with later patches: At this point it feels wrong to lose the IO-APIC pointer in places like this, as from domain and value alone you won't be able to reconstruct it. I.e. I would have considered it more natural if you simply added another function parameter. I also wonder whether in at least some of the cases the new struct domain * parameters of functions couldn't be const- qualified. In any event I'll want to have looked at more of this series to understand whether the patch here is okay in its current form. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
