Messages in this thread | | | From | Ian Campbell <> | Date | Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:56:28 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] xen: HVM X2APIC support |
| |
> > @@ -1384,6 +1365,17 @@ static bool __init xen_hvm_platform(void) > > return true; > > } > > > > +bool xen_hvm_need_lapic(void) > > +{ > > + if (xen_pv_domain()) > > + return false; > > + if (xen_hvm_domain() && xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs) && > > + xen_have_vector_callback) > > + return false; > > + return (xen_cpuid_base() != 0); > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_hvm_need_lapic); > > +
Since xen_hvm_domain() is always true if xen_cpuid_base() != 0, isn't this more obviously written as: if (!xen_hvm_domain()) return false; if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs) && xen_have_vector_callback) return false; return true; ?
Also, checking for the XenVMMXenVMM signature alone seems like a very broad test for checking the availability of a specific feature, is there nothing more specific which we could/should be testing?
Ian.
-- Ian Campbell Current Noise: Taint - Mass Appeal Sadness
What's a cult? It just means not enough people to make a minority. -- Robert Altman
| |