>>> On 16.11.16 at 14:01, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 16/11/16 12:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 16.11.16 at 13:31, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> This reduces the net complexity of CPUID handling by having all adjustments >>> in >>> at the same place. Remove the now-unused vpmu_do_cpuid() infrastructure. >> I have to admit that I'm not convinced this is a good idea at this point, >> due to the added redundancy. Iirc your plan is to combine hvm_cpuid() >> and pv_cpuid() anyway, at which point the folding done here would be >> quite a bit more natural. > > Indeed, to guest_cpuid(). > > It is far easier to reason about the safety of both changes by first > untangling the calltree, then merging the functions. I tried it the > other way first, but that is far more complicated change.
Well, let's see what others think. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
