On Tue, 5 May 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 17:32 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
index 5330dfe..0149d06 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
@@ -39,7 +39,12 @@
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 17:32 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
index 5330dfe..0149d06 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
@@ -39,7 +39,12 @@ static inline int
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 13:00 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
I'm inclined to just go with this patch for now, unless Stefano is
nacking it.
This patch seem to turn into a workaround, would it be better to move
check idle_check in apply_p2m_check?
I will prepare a follow-up to avoid properly
Hi Ian,
On 05/05/15 12:40, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 17:32 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
index 5330dfe..0149d06 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/event.h
@@ -39,7 +39,12 @@
On 05/05/15 13:29, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 13:00 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
I'm inclined to just go with this patch for now, unless Stefano is
nacking it.
This patch seem to turn into a workaround, would it be better to move
check idle_check in apply_p2m_check?
I will
Hi,
On 04/05/2015 12:44, Riku Voipio wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 19:32, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 27/04/15 16:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
The commit 569fb6c xen/arm: Data abort exception (R/W) mem_access
events makes
The commit 569fb6c xen/arm: Data abort exception (R/W) mem_access
events makes apply_p2m_changes to call hypercall_preempt_check for any
operation rather than for relinquish.
The function hypercall_preempt_check call local_events_need_delivery
which rely on the current VCPU is not an idle VCPU.
IMHO we should check if op==RELINQUISH || op==MEMACCESS before calling
hypercall_preempt_check.
That was a change I made - previously it was only called if the op was
RELINQUISH
and not the other way around.
Tamas
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
The
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
The commit 569fb6c xen/arm: Data abort exception (R/W) mem_access
events makes apply_p2m_changes to call hypercall_preempt_check for any
operation rather than for relinquish.
The function hypercall_preempt_check call local_events_need_delivery
which
Hi Tamas,
On 27/04/15 16:40, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
IMHO we should check if op==RELINQUISH || op==MEMACCESS before
calling hypercall_preempt_check. That was a change I made - previously
it was only called if the op was RELINQUISH and not the other way around.
I though about it but it make the
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
Hi Tamas,
On 27/04/15 16:40, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
IMHO we should check if op==RELINQUISH || op==MEMACCESS before
calling hypercall_preempt_check. That was a change I made - previously
it was only called if the
Hi Stefano,
On 27/04/15 16:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
The commit 569fb6c xen/arm: Data abort exception (R/W) mem_access
events makes apply_p2m_changes to call hypercall_preempt_check for any
operation rather than for relinquish.
The function
12 matches
Mail list logo
