>>> On 03.08.16 at 17:15, wrote:
> On 03/08/16 16:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.07.16 at 11:51, wrote:
>>> For the same reason as c/s 33a231e3f "x86/HVM: fold hypercall tables" and
>>> (TODO - changeset) "x86/pv: Merge the pv hypercall
On 03/08/16 16:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.07.16 at 11:51, wrote:
>> For the same reason as c/s 33a231e3f "x86/HVM: fold hypercall tables" and
>> (TODO - changeset) "x86/pv: Merge the pv hypercall tables", this removes the
>> risk of accidentally updating only one
>>> On 18.07.16 at 11:51, wrote:
> For the same reason as c/s 33a231e3f "x86/HVM: fold hypercall tables" and
> (TODO - changeset) "x86/pv: Merge the pv hypercall tables", this removes the
> risk of accidentally updating only one of the tables.
Based on this argument
For the same reason as c/s 33a231e3f "x86/HVM: fold hypercall tables" and
(TODO - changeset) "x86/pv: Merge the pv hypercall tables", this removes the
risk of accidentally updating only one of the tables.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan Beulich