On 05/01/17 16:53, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 08:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.01.17 at 13:06, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.h
>>> @@ -1,9 +1,13 @@
>>> /* attempt to consolidate cpu attributes */
>>> struct
On 01/04/2017 08:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.01.17 at 13:06, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.h
>> @@ -1,9 +1,13 @@
>> /* attempt to consolidate cpu attributes */
>> struct cpu_dev {
>> -char* c_vendor;
>> +char
>>> On 03.01.17 at 13:06, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.h
> @@ -1,9 +1,13 @@
> /* attempt to consolidate cpu attributes */
> struct cpu_dev {
> - char* c_vendor;
> + charc_vendor[8];
>
> - /* some have two
>>> On 03.01.17 at 13:41, wrote:
> On 03/01/17 12:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> For the patch itself
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich
>
> Does this still stand if I split the patch into two, for easier backport?
Yes.
Jan
On 03/01/17 12:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.01.17 at 13:06, wrote:
>> Comparing 3 integers is more efficient than using strcmp(), and is more
>> useful
>> to the gcv_guest case than having to fabricate a suitable string to pass.
>> The
>> gcv_host cases have
>>> On 03.01.17 at 13:06, wrote:
> Comparing 3 integers is more efficient than using strcmp(), and is more useful
> to the gcv_guest case than having to fabricate a suitable string to pass. The
> gcv_host cases have both options easily to hand, and experimentally, the
Comparing 3 integers is more efficient than using strcmp(), and is more useful
to the gcv_guest case than having to fabricate a suitable string to pass. The
gcv_host cases have both options easily to hand, and experimentally, the
resulting code is more efficient.
While modifying