Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-24 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/03/2017 05:45, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 23/03/17 18:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 23/03/17 17:12, Tim Deegan wrote: >>> At 17:02 + on 23 Mar (1490288548), Andrew Cooper wrote: On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-24 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 24/03/2017 07:47, Jan Beulich wrote: On 23.03.17 at 18:35, wrote: >> On 23/03/17 17:12, Tim Deegan wrote: >>> At 17:02 + on 23 Mar (1490288548), Andrew Cooper wrote: On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899),

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 24.03.17 at 08:58, wrote: > On 24/03/17 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.03.17 at 06:45, wrote: >>> On 23/03/17 18:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: Would you prefer ~((uint64_t)_PAGE_PSE_PAT | (_PAGE_PSE_PAT - 1)) or ~(_PAGE_PSE_PAT |

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-24 Thread Juergen Gross
On 24/03/17 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.03.17 at 06:45, wrote: >> On 23/03/17 18:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> Would you prefer ~((uint64_t)_PAGE_PSE_PAT | (_PAGE_PSE_PAT - 1)) or >>> ~(_PAGE_PSE_PAT | (_PAGE_PSE_PAT - 1) | 0ULL) >> >> Wouldn't it be better to just define

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 24.03.17 at 06:45, wrote: > On 23/03/17 18:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Would you prefer ~((uint64_t)_PAGE_PSE_PAT | (_PAGE_PSE_PAT - 1)) or >> ~(_PAGE_PSE_PAT | (_PAGE_PSE_PAT - 1) | 0ULL) > > Wouldn't it be better to just define the _PAGE_PSE bits accordingly? I don't

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-24 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 23.03.17 at 18:35, wrote: > On 23/03/17 17:12, Tim Deegan wrote: >> At 17:02 + on 23 Mar (1490288548), Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote: > Some bits are

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-23 Thread Juergen Gross
On 23/03/17 18:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 23/03/17 17:12, Tim Deegan wrote: >> At 17:02 + on 23 Mar (1490288548), Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote: > Some bits are unconditionally reserved in

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-23 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 23/03/17 17:12, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 17:02 + on 23 Mar (1490288548), Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: >>> At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote: Some bits are unconditionally reserved in pagetable entries, or reserved because of

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-23 Thread Tim Deegan
At 17:02 + on 23 Mar (1490288548), Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> Some bits are unconditionally reserved in pagetable entries, or reserved > >> because of alignment restrictions. Other bits are

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-23 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 23/03/17 16:55, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Some bits are unconditionally reserved in pagetable entries, or reserved >> because of alignment restrictions. Other bits are reserved because of >> control >> register configuration. >> >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-23 Thread Tim Deegan
At 16:31 + on 16 Mar (1489681899), Andrew Cooper wrote: > Some bits are unconditionally reserved in pagetable entries, or reserved > because of alignment restrictions. Other bits are reserved because of control > register configuration. > > Introduce helpers which take an individual vcpu and

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-20 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 16.03.17 at 17:31, wrote: > Some bits are unconditionally reserved in pagetable entries, or reserved > because of alignment restrictions. Other bits are reserved because of control > register configuration. > > Introduce helpers which take an individual vcpu

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/pagewalk: Helpers for reserved bit handling

2017-03-16 Thread Andrew Cooper
Some bits are unconditionally reserved in pagetable entries, or reserved because of alignment restrictions. Other bits are reserved because of control register configuration. Introduce helpers which take an individual vcpu and guest pagetable entry, and calculates whether any reserved bits are