On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:59:38AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 17.08.18 at 17:12, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/hypercall.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/hypercall.c
> > @@ -68,7 +68,9 @@ const hypercall_table_t pv_hypercall_table[] = {
> > #endif
> > HYPERCALL(event_channel_op),
> > COMPAT_CALL(physdev_op),
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
> > HYPERCALL(hvm_op),
> > +#endif
> > HYPERCALL(sysctl),
> > HYPERCALL(domctl),
> > #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
> > @@ -78,7 +80,9 @@ const hypercall_table_t pv_hypercall_table[] = {
> > HYPERCALL(tmem_op),
> > #endif
> > HYPERCALL(xenpmu_op),
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM
> > COMPAT_CALL(dm_op),
> > +#endif
> > HYPERCALL(mca),
> > HYPERCALL(arch_1),
> > };
>
> Is there anything speaking against putting them both into the same
> single #ifdef?
No.
> Also, what about hypercall_args_table[]?
Stray entries in hypercall_args_table shouldn't cause any harm, but I
agree we should put them under ifdef as well.
Wei.
>
> Jan
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
