>>> On 08.12.14 at 15:56, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> Additionally please add IN and OUT annotations. When I first saw >>>> this I assumed they would all be OUT (in which case the long running >>>> loop problem mentioned in the reply to one of the other patches >>>> wouldn't have been there), matching their CPU counterpart... >>> I don't follow this. Are you saying that if ti->max_devs in patch 3/4 is >>> an IN (which it is) then we don't have to guard for long-running loops? >> If they were all OUT then there wouldn't be a way for the entire >> operation to be fooled into going over more devices than there are >> in the system. > > Assuming I add continuations to the loop, too many devices wouldn't be a > problem for the hypervisor, would it? If an unreasonable number is > provided then eventually copy_from_guest() will fault. Continuations would address the concern, but it doesn't seem like their use is really warranted here. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
