On 2/3/2016 2:23 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 13:54 +0200, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
I thought this mail was not sent properly (didn't find it any longer on
the web (?)) and I resent it just earlier.
I figured it must've been the fact that I forgot to put a "Changed since
v1"
When __p2m_get_mem_access gets called, the p2m lock is already taken
by either get_page_from_gva or p2m_get_mem_access.
Possible code paths:
1) -> get_page_from_gva
-> p2m_mem_access_check_and_get_page
-> __p2m_get_mem_access
2) ->
On 2/3/2016 1:52 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 13:37 +0200, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
I just now applied a previous v2 which was already in my queue. Was this
just an accidental resend of v2 or is there some important change and this
is really a v3?
When __p2m_get_mem_access gets
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 13:54 +0200, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
> On 2/3/2016 1:48 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:24 +0200, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
> > > When __p2m_get_mem_access gets called, the p2m lock is already taken
> > > by either get_page_from_gva or p2m_get_mem_access.
> > >
On 2/3/2016 1:48 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:24 +0200, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
When __p2m_get_mem_access gets called, the p2m lock is already taken
by either get_page_from_gva or p2m_get_mem_access.
Possible code paths:
1) -> get_page_from_gva
->
When __p2m_get_mem_access gets called, the p2m lock is already taken
by either get_page_from_gva or p2m_get_mem_access.
Possible code paths:
1) -> get_page_from_gva
-> p2m_mem_access_check_and_get_page
-> __p2m_get_mem_access
2) ->
