[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294239388.3831.3516.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:56:28 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] xen: HVM X2APIC support
> > @@ -1384,6 +1365,17 @@ static bool __init xen_hvm_platform(void)
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +bool xen_hvm_need_lapic(void)
> > +{
> > + if (xen_pv_domain())
> > + return false;
> > + if (xen_hvm_domain() && xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs) &&
> > + xen_have_vector_callback)
> > + return false;
> > + return (xen_cpuid_base() != 0);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_hvm_need_lapic);
> > +
Since xen_hvm_domain() is always true if xen_cpuid_base() != 0, isn't
this more obviously written as:
if (!xen_hvm_domain())
return false;
if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs) && xen_have_vector_callback)
return false;
return true;
?
Also, checking for the XenVMMXenVMM signature alone seems like a very
broad test for checking the availability of a specific feature, is there
nothing more specific which we could/should be testing?
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Taint - Mass Appeal Sadness
What's a cult? It just means not enough people to make a minority.
-- Robert Altman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists