On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:17 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>> On 10.04.19 at 13:20, wrote:
> > On 4/10/19 12:13 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 10/04/2019 11:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> There's no need to execute any instructions for doing so.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> >>> ---
>
>>> On 10.04.19 at 13:20, wrote:
> On 4/10/19 12:13 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/04/2019 11:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> There's no need to execute any instructions for doing so.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>> ---
>>> I wonder whether mem_sharing_init() shouldn't go away altogether
On 4/10/19 12:13 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/04/2019 11:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> There's no need to execute any instructions for doing so.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>> ---
>> I wonder whether mem_sharing_init() shouldn't go away altogether then.
>
> I vote for removing it
On 10/04/2019 11:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> There's no need to execute any instructions for doing so.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> ---
> I wonder whether mem_sharing_init() shouldn't go away altogether then.
I vote for removing it completely. The printk is a out-of-character
compared to other
There's no need to execute any instructions for doing so.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
I wonder whether mem_sharing_init() shouldn't go away altogether then.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
@@ -65,8 +65,8 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(pg_lock_data_t, __
