Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/9] x86/pvh: Properly set HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START for PVH guests
On 20.06.15 at 05:09, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote: --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d, unsigned int domcr_flags, mapcache_domain_init(d); HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START(d) = -is_pv_domain(d) ? __HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START : ~0u; +is_hvm_domain(d) ? ~0u : __HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START; Why would a PVH domain be different in this respect from a HVM one? Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/9] x86/pvh: Properly set HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START for PVH guests
On 06/23/2015 09:25 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.06.15 at 05:09, boris.ostrov...@oracle.com wrote: --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d, unsigned int domcr_flags, mapcache_domain_init(d); HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START(d) = -is_pv_domain(d) ? __HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START : ~0u; +is_hvm_domain(d) ? ~0u : __HYPERVISOR_COMPAT_VIRT_START; Why would a PVH domain be different in this respect from a HVM one? No reason indeed. I somehow thought that layout should be similar to PV, which it doesn't need to be. So this patch should be dropped. -boris ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
