On Ma, 2018-07-17 at 08:03 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > I will change this in the next version but I will wait for more comments on the rest of the patches.
Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
