On 11/08/2021 07:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.08.2021 19:47, Kevin Stefanov wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/kexec.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/kexec.c
>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
>> #include <compat/kexec.h>
>> #endif
>>
>> -bool_t kexecing = FALSE;
>> +bool kexecing;
> While not overly important for either of the two present readers,
> I nevertheless wonder whether at this occasion the variable
> couldn't also become __read_mostly. Andrew, thoughts?
Yeah - forgot that.
>
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/kexec.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/kexec.h
>> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ typedef struct xen_kexec_reserve {
>> extern xen_kexec_reserve_t kexec_crash_area;
>> extern paddr_t kexec_crash_area_limit;
>>
>> -extern bool_t kexecing;
>> +extern bool kexecing;
> Later in this file there's also a #define of this identifier, which
> imo then wants to also change from expanding to 0 to using "false".
Sounds good too.
~Andrew
