From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH V7] xen/vm_event: Clean up control-register-write vm_events and add XCR0 event Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:47:20 +0300 Message-ID: <55686DE8.7030206@bitdefender.com> References: <1432791185-24668-1-git-send-email-rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> <55672732.1060408@bitdefender.com> <5567432B.6090808@bitdefender.com> <556849A8020000780007EDF7@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <556849A8020000780007EDF7@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 , Tamas Lengyel Cc: tim@xen.org, kevin.tian@intel.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, Stefano Stabellini , andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jun Nakajima , keir@xen.org, Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/29/2015 12:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 28.05.15 at 18:32, wrote: >> the macro will probably go out the window (or the first parameter will >> need to be changed to VM_EVENT_##what instead of VM_EVENT_X86_##what) as >> soon as ARM control register write events will come into play. > > It's in an x86-specific header, so why should it need to be changed > for ARM? If ARM will gain a similarly named function, the use sites > will still all be architecture specific, and hence both declaration and > whether or not to have a wrapper macro can remain a per-arch > decision. You're right. Submitted V8 with the proper header included. Thanks, Razvan