On 29/10/2020 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 29.10.2020 15:00, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> This comment has been around since c/s 1372bca0615 in 2004. It is stale, as >> it predates the introduction of struct vcpu. > That commit only moved it around; it's 22a857bde9b8 afaics from > early 2003 where it first appeared, where it had a reason: > > /* > * WARNING: The new domain must have its 'processor' field > * filled in by now !! > */ > phys_l2tab = ALLOC_FRAME_FROM_DOMAIN(); > l2tab = map_domain_mem(phys_l2tab); > memcpy(l2tab, idle_pg_table[p->processor], PAGE_SIZE);
Oh yes - my simple search didn't spot the reformat. > > But yes, the comment has been stale for a long time, and I've > been wondering a number of times what it was supposed to tell > me. (I think it was already stale at the point the comment > first got altered, in 3072fef54df8.) Looks like it became stale with 99db02d5097 "Remove CPU-dependent page-directory entries." which drops the per-cpu idle_pg_table. > >> It is not obvious that it was even correct at the time. Where a vcpu (domain >> at the time) has been configured to run is unrelated to construct the >> domain's >> initial pagetables, etc. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Thanks. I'll update the commit message. ~Andrew
