Re: [PATCH] x86/MTRR: avoid several indirect calls

2024-04-23 Thread Jan Beulich
On 23.04.2024 03:17, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 10:32:53AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mtrr/main.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mtrr/main.c >> @@ -328,7 +316,7 @@ int mtrr_add_page(unsigned long base, un >> } >> >> /* If the type

Re: [PATCH] x86/MTRR: avoid several indirect calls

2024-04-22 Thread Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 10:32:53AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mtrr/main.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mtrr/main.c > @@ -328,7 +316,7 @@ int mtrr_add_page(unsigned long base, un > } > > /* If the type is WC, check that this processor supports it */ > - if

Re: [PATCH] x86/MTRR: avoid several indirect calls

2024-01-17 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 17/01/2024 9:32 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > The use of (supposedly) vendor-specific hooks is a relic from the days > when Xen was still possible to build as 32-bit binary. There's no > expectation that a new need for such an abstraction would arise. Convert > mttr_if to a mere boolean and all

[PATCH] x86/MTRR: avoid several indirect calls

2024-01-17 Thread Jan Beulich
The use of (supposedly) vendor-specific hooks is a relic from the days when Xen was still possible to build as 32-bit binary. There's no expectation that a new need for such an abstraction would arise. Convert mttr_if to a mere boolean and all prior calls through it to direct ones, thus allowing