From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 11/14] x86/VPMU: Handle PMU interrupts
	for PV guests
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:47:12 -0400
Message-ID: <55118700.9050204@oracle.com>
References: <1426604051-2980-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<1426604051-2980-12-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<551182A3020000780006D030@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55117F2B.7010900@oracle.com>
	<5511928F020000780006D13E@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <5511928F020000780006D13E@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, tim@xen.org, dietmar.hahn@ts.fujitsu.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 03/24/2015 11:36 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.03.15 at 16:13, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2015 10:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.03.15 at 15:54, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> Changes in v19:
>>>> * Adjusted for new ops interfaces (passing vcpu vs. vpmu)
>>>> * Test for domain->max_cpu in choose_hwdom_vcpu() instead of
>>>> 'domain->vcpu!=NULL'
>>> I suppose that's something that then should also be done in patch 7?
>> We only need this routine during interrupt handling (for PV(H)) and this
>> is the patch that introduces this functionality.
>>
>> And if you are asking about the test specifically --- this is also the
>> first patch where we refer to hardware_domain->vcpu[], which is what the
>> test is really for.
>>
>> Or is it something else that you had in mind?
> Yes - following Andrew's cleanup I believe the d->vcpu != NULL
> check is redundant with having (perhaps indirectly)
> checked d->max_vcpus > 0.

Then I am not sure I understand what you are asking me to do for patch 
7, sorry.

-boris