| Message ID | 65bfcd6a-2bb0-da6f-9e85-39f224bd81fb@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | x86: mm (mainly shadow) adjustments | expand |
On 17/04/2020 15:23, Jan Beulich wrote: > Large parts of this series are to further isolate pieces which > are needed for HVM only, and hence would better not be built > with HVM=n. But there are also a few other items which I've > noticed along the road. > > 01: mm: no-one passes a NULL domain to init_xen_l4_slots() > 02: shadow: drop a stray forward structure declaration > 03: shadow: monitor table is HVM-only > 04: shadow: sh_update_linear_entries() is a no-op for PV > 05: mm: monitor table is HVM-only > 06: shadow: sh_remove_write_access_from_sl1p() can be static > 07: shadow: the guess_wrmap() hook is needed for HVM only > 08: mm: pagetable_dying() is HVM-only > 09: shadow: the trace_emul_write_val() hook is HVM-only > 10: shadow: don't open-code shadow_blow_tables_per_domain() Patch 1 I think ought to be dropped. Everything else Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, ideally with the suggested tweak in patch 3. ~Andrew
At 16:23 +0200 on 17 Apr (1587140581), Jan Beulich wrote: > Large parts of this series are to further isolate pieces which > are needed for HVM only, and hence would better not be built > with HVM=n. But there are also a few other items which I've > noticed along the road. Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> with two suggestions that I've sent separately. Cheers, Tim.