>>> On 20.11.17 at 15:10, wrote:
> On 17/11/17 12:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.11.17 at 20:15, wrote:
>>> Doing so amounts to silent state corruption, and must be avoided.
>> I think a little more explanation is needed on why the current code
>> is insufficient. Note specifically this
>>
>>
On 17/11/17 12:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.11.17 at 20:15, wrote:
>> Doing so amounts to silent state corruption, and must be avoided.
> I think a little more explanation is needed on why the current code
> is insufficient. Note specifically this
>
> for ( i = 0; !err && i < ctxt->count;
>>> On 16.11.17 at 20:15, wrote:
> Doing so amounts to silent state corruption, and must be avoided.
I think a little more explanation is needed on why the current code
is insufficient. Note specifically this
for ( i = 0; !err && i < ctxt->count; ++i )
{
switch ( ctxt->msr[i].ind
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:15:32PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Doing so amounts to silent state corruption, and must be avoided.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.
Doing so amounts to silent state corruption, and must be avoided.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan Beulich
CC: Wei Liu
CC: Jun Nakajima
CC: Kevin Tian
CC: Boris Ostrovsky
CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit
CC: Julien Grall
This wants backporting to all stable trees, so should also be consi