>>> On 06.01.17 at 11:37, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: 05 January 2017 10:55 >> @@ -68,6 +80,11 @@ struct segment_register *hvmemul_get_seg >> struct hvm_emulate_ctxt *hvmemul_ctxt); >> int hvm_emulate_one_mmio(unsigned long mfn, unsigned long gla); >> >> +static inline bool handle_mmio(void) >> +{ >> + return hvm_emulate_one_insn(x86_insn_is_mem_access); >> +} >> + > > There are not many call sites for handle_mmio(). Would it not be better just > to change them all rather than using this inline for the few left after your > changes to the SVM code?
Well, I am of the opinion that where we're really dealing with MMIO, the shorthand is more obvious than open coding it in all places, no matter that there are only a few left. So I'd prefer to keep it as is. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
