> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Cooper > Sent: 28 November 2016 12:58 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; Xen-devel <xen- > [email protected]> > Cc: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>; Tim (Xen.org) <[email protected]>; Jun > Nakajima <[email protected]>; Kevin Tian <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/19] x86/hvm: Avoid __hvm_copy() raising #PF > behind the emulators back > > On 28/11/16 11:56, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: 28 November 2016 11:14 > >> To: Xen-devel <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Jan Beulich > >> <[email protected]>; Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; Tim > >> (Xen.org) <[email protected]>; Jun Nakajima <[email protected]>; > Kevin > >> Tian <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 17/19] x86/hvm: Avoid __hvm_copy() raising #PF > behind > >> the emulators back > >> > >> Drop the call to hvm_inject_page_fault() in __hvm_copy(), and require > >> callers > >> to inject the pagefault themselves. > >> > >> No functional change. > > That's not the way it looks on the face of it. You've indeed removed the > > call > to hvm_inject_page_fault() but some of the callers now call > x86_emul_pagefault(). I'd call that a functional change... clearly the change > you intended, but still a functional change. > > Hmm - I suppose I am confusing no functional change in the hypervisor > with no functional change as observed by a guest. >
Yes, I was thinking from the PoV of someone looking at this patch years later and saying 'hang on a minute...'. Saying 'no guest-observable behavioural change' is much clearer I think. Paul > ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
