>>> On 11.12.14 at 14:16, wrote:
> At 13:09 + on 11 Dec (1418299748), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 11.12.14 at 14:00, wrote:
>> > At 10:47 + on 11 Dec (1418291241), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> ... for the time being: The mechanism used depends on the domain's use
>> >> of the IRET hypercall.
At 13:09 + on 11 Dec (1418299748), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.12.14 at 14:00, wrote:
> > At 10:47 + on 11 Dec (1418291241), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> ... for the time being: The mechanism used depends on the domain's use
> >> of the IRET hypercall.
> >
> > Can you elaborate? Looking at
>>> On 11.12.14 at 14:00, wrote:
> At 10:47 + on 11 Dec (1418291241), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> ... for the time being: The mechanism used depends on the domain's use
>> of the IRET hypercall.
>
> Can you elaborate? Looking at the existing code it seems like what it
> does is set v->nmi_pending
At 10:47 + on 11 Dec (1418291241), Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... for the time being: The mechanism used depends on the domain's use
> of the IRET hypercall.
Can you elaborate? Looking at the existing code it seems like what it
does is set v->nmi_pending and make sure the vcpu gets scheduled
approp
On 11/12/14 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... for the time being: The mechanism used depends on the domain's use
> of the IRET hypercall.
>
> Also drop two bogus code lines spotted while going through the involved
> code paths: Addresses of per-CPU variables can't possibly be NULL, and
> the setting
