That is OK, You can send two patches. The first one will WARN_ON and
overwrite exception like the current code does. And the second one
will remove WARN_ON explaining that this case is actually possible to
trigger from a guest.
Sounds you don't like to provide this additional one, here it is
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:35:31PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:04:52AM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
There is not point referring to current code. Current code does not
handle serial exceptions properly. So fix it in your patch
otherwise I
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:04:52AM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
There is not point referring to current code. Current code does not
handle serial exceptions properly. So fix it in your patch otherwise I
propose to use my patch that fixes current code
Dong, Eddie wrote:
There is not point referring to current code. Current code does not
handle serial exceptions properly. So fix it in your patch otherwise I
propose to use my patch that fixes current code
(http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/21829/).
I would like Avi to decide.
I would
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:04:52AM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
There is not point referring to current code. Current code does not
handle serial exceptions properly. So fix it in your patch
otherwise I propose to use my patch that fixes current code
There is not point referring to current code. Current code does not
handle serial exceptions properly. So fix it in your patch otherwise I
propose to use my patch that fixes current code
(http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/21829/).
I would like Avi to decide. As comments to the difference
Dong, Eddie wrote:
Move Double-Fault generation logic out of page fault
exception generating function to cover more generic case.
Signed-off-by: Eddie Dong eddie.d...@intel.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index ab1fdac..51a8dad 100644
---
Dong, Eddie wrote:
No content (except for quoted message)?
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to
panic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Gleb Natapov wrote:
+
+static int exception_class(int vector)
+{
+if (vector == 14)
+return EXCPT_PF;
+else if (vector == 0 || (vector = 10 vector = 13)) +
return
EXCPT_CONTRIBUTORY; +else
+return EXCPT_BENIGN;
+}
+
This makes
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 04:27:28PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
+
+static int exception_class(int vector)
+{
+ if (vector == 14)
+ return EXCPT_PF;
+ else if (vector == 0 || (vector = 10 vector = 13)) +
return
EXCPT_CONTRIBUTORY; +
ction will be re-executed.
Do you want it to be covered for now? For exception, it is easy but
for IRQ, it needs to be pushed back.
Yes I want it to be covered now otherwise any serial exception
generates flood of Exception happens serially messages. This
function does not handle IRQ so
Dong, Eddie wrote:
ction will be re-executed.
Do you want it to be covered for now? For exception, it is easy but
for IRQ, it needs to be pushed back.
Yes I want it to be covered now otherwise any serial exception
generates flood of Exception happens serially messages. This
function does
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:39:06PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
ction will be re-executed.
Do you want it to be covered for now? For exception, it is easy but
for IRQ, it needs to be pushed back.
Yes I want it to be covered now otherwise any serial exception
generates flood of
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:46:14PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
ction will be re-executed.
Do you want it to be covered for now? For exception, it is easy but
for IRQ, it needs to be pushed back.
Yes I want it to be covered now otherwise any serial exception
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:00:51PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:46:14PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
Dong, Eddie wrote:
ction will be re-executed.
Do you want it to be covered for now? For exception, it is easy
but for IRQ, it needs to be
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:24:07PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
Move Double-Fault generation logic out of page fault
exception generating function to cover more generic case.
Signed-off-by: Eddie Dong eddie.d...@intel.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
Move Double-Fault generation logic out of page fault
exception generating function to cover more generic case.
Signed-off-by: Eddie Dong eddie.d...@intel.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index ab1fdac..51a8dad 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++
17 matches
Mail list logo
