Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/memguard: Drop memguard_init() entirely

>>> On 22.02.16 at 11:29, wrote: > On 22/02/16 10:02, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.02.16 at 17:18, wrote: >>> On 19/02/16 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 18.02.16 at 19:03, wrote: > It is not obvious

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/memguard: Drop memguard_init() entirely

On 22/02/16 10:02, Jan Beulich wrote: On 19.02.16 at 17:18, wrote: >> On 19/02/16 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 18.02.16 at 19:03, wrote: It is not obvious what this code is doing. Most of it dates from 2007/2008,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/memguard: Drop memguard_init() entirely

>>> On 19.02.16 at 17:18, wrote: > On 19/02/16 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 18.02.16 at 19:03, wrote: >>> It is not obvious what this code is doing. Most of it dates from 2007/2008, >>> and there have been substantial changes in Xen's

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/memguard: Drop memguard_init() entirely

On 19/02/16 14:44, Jan Beulich wrote: On 18.02.16 at 19:03, wrote: >> It is not obvious what this code is doing. Most of it dates from 2007/2008, >> and there have been substantial changes in Xen's memory handling since then. > Deleting code which isn't understood

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/memguard: Drop memguard_init() entirely

>>> On 18.02.16 at 19:03, wrote: > It is not obvious what this code is doing. Most of it dates from 2007/2008, > and there have been substantial changes in Xen's memory handling since then. Deleting code which isn't understood what it is or was once used for is

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/memguard: Drop memguard_init() entirely

It is not obvious what this code is doing. Most of it dates from 2007/2008, and there have been substantial changes in Xen's memory handling since then. It was previously optional, and isn't needed for any of the memguard infrastructure to function. The use of MAP_SMALL_PAGES causes needless