On 29.04.2020 15:13, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 20/04/2020 15:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 17.04.2020 17:50, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c >>> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) >>> return 0; >>> >>> d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 1; >>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = 1; >>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = 1; >>> >>> for_each_vcpu( d, v ) >>> { >>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) >>> return 0; >>> >>> undo_and_fail: >>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>> for_each_vcpu( d, v ) >>> { >>> free_compat_arg_xlat(v); >>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *d) >>> d->arch.ctxt_switch = &pv_csw; >>> >>> /* 64-bit PV guest by default. */ >>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0; >> Switch to true/false while you're touching these? > > Yes, but I'm tempted to delete these lines in the final hunk. Its > writing zeros into a zeroed structures.
Oh, yes, agreed. Jan