>>> On 17.07.18 at 14:25, <aisa...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On Lu, 2018-07-16 at 15:29 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote: >> > From: Alexandru Isaila [mailto:aisa...@bitdefender.com] >> > Sent: 16 July 2018 15:55 >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c >> > @@ -787,119 +787,129 @@ static int hvm_load_tsc_adjust(struct >> > domain *d, >> > hvm_domain_context_t *h) >> > HVM_REGISTER_SAVE_RESTORE(TSC_ADJUST, hvm_save_tsc_adjust, >> > hvm_load_tsc_adjust, 1, HVMSR_PER_VCPU); >> > >> > +static int hvm_save_cpu_ctxt_one(struct vcpu *v, >> > hvm_domain_context_t >> > *h) >> > +{ >> > + struct segment_register seg; >> > + struct hvm_hw_cpu ctxt; >> > + >> > + memset(&ctxt, 0, sizeof(ctxt)); >> Why not use an = {} initializer instead of the memset here like >> elsewhere? > > I wanted to make less change as possible and I only added a initializer > where there was none.
Trying to limit patch impact is certainly appreciated, but please take a look at your patch to see whether this would really have made much of a difference. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel