On 30/05/18 09:55, Jan Beulich wrote: > While the involved code (in pv_domain_initialise()) sits behind an > !is_idle_domain() check already, we need to add one here.
I'm afraid that I struggled to understand what you meant here. AFACIT, you mean that the backport over the introduction of pv_domain_initialise() neglected to account for the fact that the idle domain also wanders this path in 4.9 and earlier? > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> Either way, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
