>>> On 15.02.17 at 12:34, wrote:
> On 15/02/17 08:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.02.17 at 16:26, wrote:
>>> On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -2066,6 +2073,15 @@ static void __context_switch(void)
per_cpu(curr_vcpu,
On 15/02/17 08:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.02.17 at 16:26, wrote:
>> On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -2066,6 +2073,15 @@ static void __context_switch(void)
>>> per_cpu(curr_vcpu, cpu) = n;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Schedule tail *should* be a
>>> On 14.02.17 at 16:26, wrote:
> On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -2066,6 +2073,15 @@ static void __context_switch(void)
>> per_cpu(curr_vcpu, cpu) = n;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Schedule tail *should* be a terminal function pointer, but leave a
>>
On 02/14/2017 05:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
They're all solely dependent on guest type, so we don't need to repeat
all the same four pointers in every vCPU control structure. Instead use
static const structures, and store pointers to them in the domain
control structure.
Since touching it
On 14/02/17 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> They're all solely dependent on guest type, so we don't need to repeat
> all the same four pointers in every vCPU control structure. Instead use
> static const structures, and store pointers to them in the domain
> control structure.
>
> Since touching it