On 30/03/2023 11:00 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.03.2023 22:51, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> @@ -573,7 +574,6 @@ int arch_vcpu_create(struct vcpu *v)
>> /* Idle domain */
>> v->arch.cr3 = __pa(idle_pg_table);
>> rc = 0;
>> - v->arch.msrs = ZERO_BLOCK_PTR; /* Catch stray misuses */
>> }
> Is this intentional? It's a vCPU pointer here, not a domain one.
Ah, no. And it answers one of my TODO notes that I hadn't got to yet
(of why MSRs was different to CPUID in this case).
It looks like it got caught in my `arch.msrs` rework. I'll drop this hunk.
>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
>> @@ -40,11 +40,11 @@
>> static int update_domain_cpu_policy(struct domain *d,
>> xen_domctl_cpu_policy_t *xdpc)
>> {
>> - struct old_cpu_policy new = {};
>> + struct cpu_policy *new;
>> struct cpu_policy *sys = is_pv_domain(d)
>> ? (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) ? &pv_max_cpu_policy : NULL)
>> : (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HVM) ? &hvm_max_cpu_policy : NULL);
>> - struct old_cpu_policy old_sys = { sys, sys };
>> + struct old_cpu_policy old_sys = { sys, sys }, old_new;
> Interesting name, but as long as it's transitional only, that's of course
> fine.
Yeah... it was the best I could come up with.
It does get removed in patch 8.
~Andrew
