Re: [PATCH v2 19/23] x86: PIT emulation is common to both PV and HVM

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 28/08/18 15:48, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:36:37AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 28.08.18 at 15:19, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:44:51AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26.08.18 at 14:19, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Move the file to x86 common code and change its name to emul-i8254.c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Put HVM only code under CONFIG_HVM or is_hvm_domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2: move the whole file.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/Makefile     |   1 +-
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/emul-i8254.c | 609 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/Makefile |   1 +-
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/i8254.c  | 597 +--------------------------------------
>>>>>  4 files changed, 610 insertions(+), 598 deletions(-)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 xen/arch/x86/emul-i8254.c
>>>>>  delete mode 100644 xen/arch/x86/hvm/i8254.c
>>>> On the assumption that the changes to the file are only CONFIG_HVM
>>>> additions
>>> No only that. There are a few is_hvm_domain calls as well.
>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> Does this still stand?
>> Yes, albeit looking at the full diff of the files I'm then a little
>> puzzled about is_hvm_domain() uses: Why does pit_load_count()
>> need an #ifdef added at all, with the is_hvm_vcpu() check
>> right before it?
> Because if I don't do that we get "defined but not used" warnings.

(hopefully) not with the newer is_hvm_vcpu() which evaluates its
arguments properly.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel