>>> On 11.05.16 at 11:57, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > On 11/05/16 09:15, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 11.05.16 at 09:00, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>> Having a Xen specific pte flag seems to be much more intrusive than >>> having an early boot page fault handler consisting of just one line >>> being capable to mimic the default handler in just one aspect (see >>> attached patch - only compile tested). >> >> Well, this simple handler may serve the purpose here, but what's >> the effect of having it in place on actual #PF (resulting e.g. from >> a bug somewhere)? I.e. what diagnostic information will be >> available to the developer in that case, now that the hypervisor >> won't help out anymore? > > Good point. As fixup_exception() is returning 0 in this case we can > set the #PF handler to NULL again and retry the failing instruction. > This will then lead to the same hypervisor handled case as today.
And how would you mean to set the #PF handler to this tiny one again for the next M2P access? You simply can't have both, I'm afraid. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
