>>> On 13.02.18 at 15:41, wrote:
> On 13/02/18 14:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.02.18 at 12:23, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/alternative.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/alternative.h
>>> @@ -65,11 +65,6 @@ extern void alternative_instructions(void);
>>> ALTERNATIVE(oldinstr, newi
>>> On 13.02.18 at 15:41, wrote:
> On 13/02/18 14:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.02.18 at 12:23, wrote:
>>> @@ -118,26 +113,6 @@ extern void alternative_instructions(void);
>>>newinstr2, feature2) \
>>> : output : input)
>>>
>
On 13/02/18 14:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.02.18 at 12:23, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/alternative.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/alternative.h
>> @@ -65,11 +65,6 @@ extern void alternative_instructions(void);
>> ALTERNATIVE(oldinstr, newinstr1, feature1)
>>> On 12.02.18 at 12:23, wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/alternative.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/alternative.h
> @@ -65,11 +65,6 @@ extern void alternative_instructions(void);
> ALTERNATIVE(oldinstr, newinstr1, feature1)\
> ALTERNATIVE_N(newinstr2, feature
On 12/02/18 15:56, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:23:01AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> ALTERNATIVE_3 is more complicated than ALTERNATIVE_2 when it comes to
>> calculating extra padding length, and we have no need for the complexity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
> Revi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:23:01AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> ALTERNATIVE_3 is more complicated than ALTERNATIVE_2 when it comes to
> calculating extra padding length, and we have no need for the complexity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné
I guess you also don'
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:23:01AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> ALTERNATIVE_3 is more complicated than ALTERNATIVE_2 when it comes to
> calculating extra padding length, and we have no need for the complexity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu
_