On 20/02/2019 16:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The assumption (according to one comment) and hope (according to
> another) that map_domain_page_global() can't fail are both wrong on
> large enough systems. Do away with the guest_vtable field altogether,
> and establish / tear down the desired mapping
>>> On 22.02.19 at 13:33, wrote:
> At 08:15 -0700 on 20 Feb (1550650529), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The assumption (according to one comment) and hope (according to
>> another) that map_domain_page_global() can't fail are both wrong on
>> large enough systems. Do away with the guest_vtable field
At 08:15 -0700 on 20 Feb (1550650529), Jan Beulich wrote:
> The assumption (according to one comment) and hope (according to
> another) that map_domain_page_global() can't fail are both wrong on
> large enough systems. Do away with the guest_vtable field altogether,
> and establish / tear down the
On 20/02/2019 15:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The assumption (according to one comment) and hope (according to
> another) that map_domain_page_global() can't fail are both wrong on
> large enough systems. Do away with the guest_vtable field altogether,
> and establish / tear down the desired mapping
The assumption (according to one comment) and hope (according to
another) that map_domain_page_global() can't fail are both wrong on
large enough systems. Do away with the guest_vtable field altogether,
and establish / tear down the desired mapping as necessary.
The alternatives, discarded as
