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

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:36:37AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 28.08.18 at 15:19, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:44:51AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 26.08.18 at 14:19, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > 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@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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.

Wei.

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

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