Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 09/24] PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type and some basic changes.

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:43:31 +0100
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> On 18.07.13 at 04:32, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
> > Chagnes in V8:
> 
> Same spelling typo in all of the change title lines...
> 
> >   - Got to VMCS for DPL check instead of checking the rpl in
> >     guest_kernel_mode.  Note, we drop the const qualifier from
> >     vcpu_show_registers() to accomodate the hvm function call in
> >     guest_kernel_mode().
> >   - Also, hvm_kernel_mode is put in hvm.c because it's called from
> >     guest_kernel_mode in regs.h which is a pretty early header
> > include. Hence, we can't place it in hvm.h like other similar
> > functions.
> 
> Are you saying that because you tried it, or just because it looks
> like so? The use of the function is in a macro, and hence if the
> macro isn't used too early this could still work out. I say this
> because the function would clearly benefit from getting inlined.

I tried a lot. I tried putting the function in hvm.h, but then that
needs to be included in regs.h, which won't work at all since regs.h
is a very early header. The other alternative, to put hvm_kernel_mode 
in regs.h itself, but then it calls hvm_get_segment_register() for
which either I need to include hvm.h in regs.h, not possible, or add
proto for hvm_get_segment_register(). But then the args to 
hvm_get_segment_register() also need their headers. So, in the end this
seemed to be the best/only way.

thanks
Mukesh


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel