On 03/09/2017 06:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.03.17 at 10:38, wrote:
>> @@ -4535,6 +4536,30 @@ static int do_altp2m_op(
>> a.u.set_mem_access.view);
>> break;
>>
>> +case HVMOP_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi:
>> +
On 03/13/2017 07:17 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
> wrote:
>> On 03/13/2017 02:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.03.17 at 13:01, wrote:
On 03/10/2017 09:01 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 02:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.03.17 at 13:01, wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2017 09:01 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andrew Cooper
On 03/13/2017 02:40 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.03.17 at 13:29, wrote:
>> On 03/13/2017 02:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> I think as long as there's no need for the guest to use an operation
>>> on itself, it should not be a hvmop. After all, if you make it a
>>> On 13.03.17 at 13:29, wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 02:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I think as long as there's no need for the guest to use an operation
>> on itself, it should not be a hvmop. After all, if you make it a domctl
>> now and later find a need for it to be
On 03/13/2017 02:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.03.17 at 13:01, wrote:
>> On 03/10/2017 09:01 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andrew Cooper
>>> wrote:
On 10/03/17 07:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 13.03.17 at 13:01, wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 09:01 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/03/17 07:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 09.03.17 at 18:29, wrote:
On 03/10/2017 09:01 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On 10/03/17 07:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.03.17 at 18:29, wrote:
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Jan Beulich
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 10/03/17 07:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.03.17 at 18:29, wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
However - is this interface supposed to
On 10/03/17 07:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.03.17 at 18:29, wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> However - is this interface supposed to be usable by a guest on itself?
>>> Arguably the same question would apply to some of
On 03/10/2017 09:31 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.03.17 at 18:15, wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 06:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.03.17 at 10:38, wrote:
@@ -4535,6 +4536,30 @@ static int do_altp2m_op(
>>> On 09.03.17 at 18:29, wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> However - is this interface supposed to be usable by a guest on itself?
>> Arguably the same question would apply to some of the other sub-ops
>> too, but anyway.
>
>
>>> On 09.03.17 at 18:15, wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 06:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.03.17 at 10:38, wrote:
>>> @@ -4535,6 +4536,30 @@ static int do_altp2m_op(
>>> a.u.set_mem_access.view);
>>>
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.03.17 at 10:38, wrote:
>> @@ -4535,6 +4536,30 @@ static int do_altp2m_op(
>> a.u.set_mem_access.view);
>> break;
>>
>> +case
On 03/09/2017 06:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.03.17 at 10:38, wrote:
>> @@ -4535,6 +4536,30 @@ static int do_altp2m_op(
>> a.u.set_mem_access.view);
>> break;
>>
>> +case HVMOP_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi:
>> +
>>> On 09.03.17 at 10:38, wrote:
> @@ -4535,6 +4536,30 @@ static int do_altp2m_op(
> a.u.set_mem_access.view);
> break;
>
> +case HVMOP_altp2m_set_mem_access_multi:
> +if ( a.u.set_mem_access_multi.pad ||
> +
16 matches
Mail list logo