Re: [PATCH v14 03/17] pvh prep: code motion

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 04/11/13 16:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.11.13 at 13:14, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -522,27 +522,27 @@ int hvm_domain_initialise(struct domain *d)
>>       spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock);
>>       spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.uc_lock);
>>   
>> -    INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->arch.hvm_domain.msixtbl_list);
>> -    spin_lock_init(&d->arch.hvm_domain.msixtbl_list_lock);
> While I can see the need for moving stuff so that it gets done
> earlier - why do these two lines need to be moved _down_?
> Even if PVH wasn't using the MSI-X support code HVM needs,
> I can't see them doing any harm.

Right -- sorry, when shuffling things around a lot (which I did while 
trying to figure out how I had broken HVM guests in v13) you miss this 
sort of thing.  I'll un-do this hunk.

  -George