From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/16]: PVH xen: supporting changes. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:41:20 -0800 Message-ID: <20130115154120.53869923@mantra.us.oracle.com> References: <20130111174851.20bac3cb@mantra.us.oracle.com> <50F3F9A302000078000B53F5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50F3F9A302000078000B53F5@nat28.tlf.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: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:27:15 +0000 "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >>> On 12.01.13 at 02:48, Mukesh Rathor > >>> wrote: > > In this patch, we make pv_cpuid() and emulate_forced_invalid_op() > > public to be used by PVH. Also put vmx functions like vmr(), > > get_instruction_length(), inlined in header file to be used by PVH. > > No real code change. > > As these functions are VMX-specific, I think they ought to get > renamed to express that. However, the mere fact that you > intend to use VMX functions outside of VMX code looks wrong. Not sure what you are referring to. The functions vmr, get_instruction_length(), etc.. are called from VMX code, ie, vmx_pvh.c. I'll rename them with vmx_ prefix. The two functions, pv_cpuid and emulate_forced_invalid_op are not vmx specific, they are called from non vmx code, ie, PV also. So renaming them doesn't make sense IMO. Recall, PVH is a PV guest. thanks, Mukesh