From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] PVH xen: introduce vmx_pvh.c and pvh.c Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 17:30:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20130510173046.7a90f9a1@mantra.us.oracle.com> References: <1366752366-16594-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> <1366752366-16594-11-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> <5177B85B02000078000D03CA@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5177B85B02000078000D03CA@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 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:47:55 +0100 "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >>> On 23.04.13 at 23:25, Mukesh Rathor > >>> wrote: > > > + case TRAP_no_device: > > + hvm_funcs.fpu_dirty_intercept(); /* > > vmx_fpu_dirty_intercept */ > > It ought to be perfectly valid to avoid the indirect call here. Well, that would entail making the function public and adding to headers, so I followed the example of other code doing the indirect calls.