From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] xen/pvh: use a custom IO bitmap for PVH hardware domains Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:08:51 +0200 Message-ID: <555C7953.6070805@citrix.com> References: <1432116691-50098-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <1432116691-50098-2-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <555C9044020000780007C1A2@mail.emea.novell.com> <555C77FD.5020708@citrix.com> <555C951F020000780007C1F2@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Yv2o4-0007ce-11 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 20 May 2015 12:09:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <555C951F020000780007C1F2@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Kevin Tian , Jun Nakajima , Stefano Stabellini , Andrew Cooper , Eddie Dong , Tim Deegan , Ian Campbell , Aravind Gopalakrishnan , SuraveeSuthikulpanit , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Boris Ostrovsky , Daniel De Graaf List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org El 20/05/15 a les 14.07, Jan Beulich ha escrit: >>>> On 20.05.15 at 14:03, wrote: >> El 20/05/15 a les 13.46, Jan Beulich ha escrit: >>>>>> On 20.05.15 at 12:11, wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c >>>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c >>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> #include >>>> +#include >>> >>> This caused the ARM build to fail. Instead of once again reverting I >>> applied the trivial fix eab0647587 without asking for permission by >>> you ARM maintainers - I hope that's okay in a case like this. >> >> I'm sorry but I'm not sure what's wrong with this chunk, and AFAICT you >> seem to have applied it unmodified. The code added in >> xen/common/domain.c is protected with #ifdef CONFIG_X86 and ARM has a >> setup.h header. > > Right, but I suppose you then also looked at my fixup patch, which > I think explains what was wrong? Yes, sorry for that, I've understood that you modified the patch in order to prevent ARM breakage, not that you pushed another on top. Roger.