In previous patches, we have provided the ability to synchronize
SErrors in exception entries. But we haven't synchronized SErrors
while returning to guest and doing context switch.
So we still have two risks:
1. Slipping hypervisor SErrors to guest. For example, hypervisor
triggers a SError wh
Hi Wei,
On 31/03/17 14:07, Wei Chen wrote:
In previous patches, we have provided the ability to synchronize
SErrors in exception entries. But we haven't synchronized SErrors
while returning to guest and doing context switch.
So we still have two risks:
1. Slipping hypervisor SErrors to guest. F
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Wei Chen wrote:
> In previous patches, we have provided the ability to synchronize
> SErrors in exception entries. But we haven't synchronized SErrors
> while returning to guest and doing context switch.
>
> So we still have two risks:
> 1. Slipping hypervisor SErrors to guest
Hi Julien,
On 2017/3/31 22:33, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Wei,
On 31/03/17 14:07, Wei Chen wrote:
In previous patches, we have provided the ability to synchronize
SErrors in exception entries. But we haven't synchronized SErrors
while returning to guest and doing context switch.
So we still have
On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
This is because we want abort enabled when the "feature" is not present.
This series looks good so far, so I would be
On 2017/4/5 15:29, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
This is because we want abort enabled when the "feature" is not present.
This
Hi Wei,
On 05/04/2017 08:35, Wei Chen wrote:
On 2017/4/5 15:29, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should
have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
This is because we want abort en
Hi Julien,
On 2017/4/5 15:29, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
This is because we want abort enabled when the "feature" is not pre
On 05/04/2017 09:08, Wei Chen wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 2017/4/5 15:29, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should
have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
This is because we want abo
Hi Julien,
On 2017/4/5 16:20, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/04/2017 09:08, Wei Chen wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 2017/4/5 15:29, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should
have
been:
ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && loc
10 matches
Mail list logo
