From 1ff87753b76aca9fae21fe702d7238c0506461af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "kaf24@freefall.cl.cam.ac.uk" Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:14:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] bitkeeper revision 1.1159.1.236 (416fe93f1eolBWPXpS5xz_W7C8c-oQ) In-comment questions have been answered. --- xen/arch/x86/shadow.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/shadow.c b/xen/arch/x86/shadow.c index b08295ce06..bd9a796db3 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/shadow.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/shadow.c @@ -256,7 +256,6 @@ static int shadow_mode_table_op( switch ( op ) { - /* XXX KAF: Do we really need this function? Is it any use? */ case DOM0_SHADOW_CONTROL_OP_FLUSH: free_shadow_state(m); @@ -268,11 +267,6 @@ static int shadow_mode_table_op( break; case DOM0_SHADOW_CONTROL_OP_CLEAN: - /* - * XXX KAF: Why not just free_shadow_state()? Is zeroing L2's faster? - * If so, why wouldn't zeroing L1's be better than freeing them, as we - * do now? - */ clear_shadow_state(m); sc->stats.fault_count = m->shadow_fault_count; -- 2.30.2