Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86: package up context switch hook pointers

2017-02-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86: package up context switch hook pointers

2017-02-15 Thread Andrew Cooper
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86: package up context switch hook pointers

2017-02-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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 >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86: package up context switch hook pointers

2017-02-14 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86: package up context switch hook pointers

2017-02-14 Thread Andrew Cooper
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