On 19/02/18 07:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.18 at 18:02, wrote:
>> On 16/02/18 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.02.18 at 16:50, wrote:
On 16/02/18 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.18 at 17:53,
>>> On 16.02.18 at 18:02, wrote:
> On 16/02/18 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.02.18 at 16:50, wrote:
>>> On 16/02/18 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 15.02.18 at 17:53, wrote:
> On 15/02/18 16:03,
On 16/02/18 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.18 at 16:50, wrote:
>> On 16/02/18 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.02.18 at 17:53, wrote:
On 15/02/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
>
>>> On 16.02.18 at 16:50, wrote:
> On 16/02/18 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.02.18 at 17:53, wrote:
>>> On 15/02/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
@@
On 16/02/18 08:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.18 at 17:53, wrote:
>> On 15/02/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
>>> @@ -73,55 +73,42 @@ void (*pv_post_outb_hook)(unsigned int p
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15.02.18 at 17:53, wrote:
> On 15/02/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
>> @@ -73,55 +73,42 @@ void (*pv_post_outb_hook)(unsigned int p
>>
>> typedef void io_emul_stub_t(struct
On 15/02/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The stub is within reach from the .text section, so there's no point
> using an indirect call here. This has the added benefit of there no
> longer being two sufficiently different approaches, breaking one of
> which people may not even notice.
>
>