Re: [V10 PATCH 08/23] PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type and some basic changes.

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:10:27 +0100
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:14 AM, George Dunlap
> <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >> And the changelog does say it:
> >>
> >> "Note, we drop the const qualifier from vcpu_show_registers() to
> >>   accomodate the hvm function call in guest_kernel_mode()."
> >
> >
> > I said *exact function*.  guest_kernel_mode() doesn't need it
> > non-const; it needs it because of a function that it calls.  That
> > in turn doesn't need it non-const either -- it needs it because of
> > the next one down.  Who *actually* needs vcpu to be non-const, way
> > down at the bottom?  That's what I need to know to understand why
> > we can't just change each of those functions to const all the way
> > down.
> 
> The general principle here is that you have already done the work of
> tracing through the code to figure out what's going on; you should
> cache that information in the commit log so that reviewers (and people
> doing archaeology) don't need to duplicate the effort.

I can't remember exact function that can't allow const, but there
are tons of leaf calls being passed v. Anyways, I'll recreate the 
crime scene, and put in the comment log.

Mukesh