From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/monitor: don't use hvm_funcs directly Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 15:55:18 +0300 Message-ID: <559E6F36.3030108@bitdefender.com> References: <1436395978-11048-1-git-send-email-tlengyel@novetta.com> <1436395978-11048-3-git-send-email-tlengyel@novetta.com> <559E1165.7080002@bitdefender.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Lengyel, Tamas" Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , eddie.dong@intel.com, Ian Jackson , Xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Jun Nakajima , Andrew Cooper , keir@xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/09/2015 03:52 PM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote: > I don't feel very strongly about it, so if you really prefer you can > keep the code as it is, however this looks somewhat counterintuitive to > me, especially when you compare the new condition to the old one, > because > ... > > > Yea, this patch is not critical. Jan just requested to use a wrapper for > hvm_funcs in the other patch so I figured I might as well fix it > everywhere in our code. It's pretty minor stuff. Well, I think that the patch is a good idea, I was just talking about changing the function to return a bool_t. Sorry for not being clearer. Cheers, Razvan