Hi,
On 11/16/2017 09:13 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I
didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it...
vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t
records in a spec-compliant stre
>>> On 16.11.17 at 22:13, wrote:
> There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I
> didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it...
>
> vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t
> records in a spec-compliant stream, so t
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:13:22PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I
> didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it...
>
> vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t
> records in
There are two bugs in process_vcpu_msrs() which clearly demonstrate that I
didn't test this bit of Migration v2 very well when writing it...
vcpu->msrsz is always expected to be a multiple of xen_domctl_vcpu_msr_t
records in a spec-compliant stream, so the modulo yields 0 for the msr_count,
rather