On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 04:50:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 07.08.18 at 12:00, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > > +#ifndef ASM_HVM_EVENT_H > > +#define ASM_HVM_EVENT_H > > + > > +#if CONFIG_HVM > > + > > +int hvm_local_events_need_delivery(struct vcpu *v); > > + > > +#else > > + > > +static inline int hvm_local_events_need_delivery(struct vcpu *v) { return > > 0; } > > + > > +#endif > > + > > +#endif /* ASM_HVM_EVENT_H */ > > Are you expecting more stuff to go into this header? If not, I don't > think a separate header is really warranted here.
Not at this stage. I have mostly been using the following structure while trying to split things: asm-x86/THING.h asm-x86/hvm/THING.h asm-x86/pv/THING.h Then THING.h includes both pv and hvm THING.h's. It is just more structural to me. Since you object here, I guess you will be happy with moving the content of this new file to asm-x86/event.h? > > Did you consider taking the opportunity and switching the function > to have bool return value at the same time? (Seeing whether the > parameter could also be constified is probably more involved a > task, and hence not suitable here.) > Switching to bool -- sure. Wei. > Jan > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel