Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 6/9] livepatch: Initial ARM64 support.

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan and Konrad,

On 15/08/2016 16:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 15.08.16 at 16:09, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:21:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 15.08.16 at 01:07, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > @@ -711,9 +711,15 @@ static int prepare_payload(struct payload *payload,
> > > >                  return -EINVAL;
> > > >              }
> > > >          }
> > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM
> > > >          apply_alternatives_nocheck(start, end);
> > > > +#else
> > > > +        apply_alternatives(start, sec->sec->sh_size);
> > > > +#endif
> > > Conditionals like this are ugly - can't this be properly abstracted?
> > Yes, I can introduce an apply_alternatives_nocheck on ARM that will
> > hava the same set of arguments on x86.
> >
> > Or I can make a new function name?
> Either way is fine with me, with a slight preference to the former
> one.
I am fine with the prototype of the function apply_alternatives_nocheck 
but I don't think the name is relevant for ARM.
Is there any reason we don't want to call directly apply_alternatives in 
x86?
Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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