On 29/05/2020 16:17, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> On 29/05/2020 15:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.05.2020 02:35, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>> A recalculation NPT fault doesn't always require additional handling
>>> in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(), moreover in general case if there is no
>>> explicit handli
On 29/05/2020 15:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.05.2020 02:35, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> A recalculation NPT fault doesn't always require additional handling
>> in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(), moreover in general case if there is no
>> explicit handling done there - the fault is wrongly considered f
On 29/05/2020 15:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 01:35:53AM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> A recalculation NPT fault doesn't always require additional handling
>> in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(), moreover in general case if there is no
>> explicit handling done there - the faul
On 29.05.2020 02:35, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> A recalculation NPT fault doesn't always require additional handling
> in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(), moreover in general case if there is no
> explicit handling done there - the fault is wrongly considered fatal.
>
> Instead of trying to be opportunis
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 01:35:53AM +0100, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> A recalculation NPT fault doesn't always require additional handling
> in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(), moreover in general case if there is no
> explicit handling done there - the fault is wrongly considered fatal.
>
> Instead of tr
A recalculation NPT fault doesn't always require additional handling
in hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(), moreover in general case if there is no
explicit handling done there - the fault is wrongly considered fatal.
Instead of trying to be opportunistic - use safer approach and handle
P2M recalculation
