On 02.12.21 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Julien, Jan
Hi Jan,
On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
could be re-established by a parallel request o
Hi Jan,
On 02/12/2021 10:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 02.12.2021 10:09, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
could be re-es
On 02.12.2021 10:09, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
>> of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
>> could be re-established by a parallel request on ano
Hi Jan,
On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
could be re-established by a parallel request on another vCPU. Move the
code to Arm's gnttab_set_frame_gfn
Hi Jan,
On 26/11/2021 08:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.11.2021 17:37, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
could be re-established
On 25.11.2021 17:37, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
>> of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
>> could be re-established by a parallel request on another vCPU. Mo
Hi Jan,
Sorry for the delay. I was waiting for XSA-387 to go out before answering.
On 13/09/2021 07:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
could be re-established by a p
On 22.09.2021 12:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:42:30AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.09.2021 11:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 0
Hi Jan,
On 22/09/2021 15:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.09.2021 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 22/09/2021 14:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.09.2021 11:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon,
On 22.09.2021 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22/09/2021 14:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.09.2021 11:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200
Hi,
On 22/09/2021 14:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.09.2021 11:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.09.2021 12:20, Roger Pau Monné w
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:42:30AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.09.2021 11:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 2
On 22.09.2021 11:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.09.2021 12:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 0
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:12:05PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 20.09.2021 12:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> ---
On 21.09.2021 10:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.09.2021 12:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/grant_table.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/gran
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.09.2021 12:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/grant_table.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/grant_table.h
> >> +if ( gfn_eq(ogfn, INVAL
On 20.09.2021 12:20, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/grant_table.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/grant_table.h
>> @@ -71,11 +71,17 @@ int replace_grant_host_mapping(unsigned
>> XFREE((gt)->arch.status_gfn);
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
> of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
> could be re-established by a parallel request on another vCPU. Move the
> code to Arm's gn
Without holding appropriate locks, attempting to remove a prior mapping
of the underlying page is pointless, as the same (or another) mapping
could be re-established by a parallel request on another vCPU. Move the
code to Arm's gnttab_set_frame_gfn(). Of course this new placement
doesn't improve th
19 matches
Mail list logo