Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: alter completion-needed checking

2018-04-09 Thread Paul Durrant
...@citrix.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; Jun > Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; xen-devel de...@lists.xenproject.org> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: alter completion-needed > checking > > >>> On 09.04.18 at 15:33, <paul.d

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: alter completion-needed checking

2018-04-09 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 09.04.18 at 15:33, wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: 09 April 2018 14:24 >> To: xen-devel >> Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Paul Durrant >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: alter completion-needed checking

2018-04-09 Thread Paul Durrant
> -Original Message- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 09 April 2018 14:24 > To: xen-devel > Cc: Andrew Cooper ; Paul Durrant > ; Jun Nakajima ; Kevin > Tian

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/HVM: alter completion-needed checking

2018-04-09 Thread Jan Beulich
The function only looks at the ioreq_t, so pass it a pointer to just that. Also use it in hvmemul_do_io(). Suggested-by: Paul Durrant Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- RFC: While this avoids some open coding, generated code looks to be worse for