Re: [PATCH v12 03/11] x86/hvm: Introduce hvm_save_cpu_ctxt_one func

[Isaila Alexandru <aisaila@bitdefender.com>]

On Ma, 2018-07-17 at 08:03 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 17.07.18 at 14:25, <aisaila@bitdefender.com> wrote:
> > On Lu, 2018-07-16 at 15:29 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > From: Alexandru Isaila [mailto:aisaila@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