On 23/04/18 15:39, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/04/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> hvm_domain_initialise() may call this with nr being zero, which triggers
>> the "does not cross L3 boundary" check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper
On 20/04/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> hvm_domain_initialise() may call this with nr being zero, which triggers
> the "does not cross L3 boundary" check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Acked-by: Andrew Cooper
>>> On 20.04.18 at 17:42, wrote:
> On 20/04/18 16:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.04.18 at 17:21, wrote:
>>> On 20/04/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
hvm_domain_initialise() may call this with nr being zero, which triggers
the "does
On 20/04/18 16:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.04.18 at 17:21, wrote:
>> On 20/04/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> hvm_domain_initialise() may call this with nr being zero, which triggers
>>> the "does not cross L3 boundary" check.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>>> On 20.04.18 at 17:21, wrote:
> On 20/04/18 16:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> hvm_domain_initialise() may call this with nr being zero, which triggers
>> the "does not cross L3 boundary" check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> Is this the correct
hvm_domain_initialise() may call this with nr being zero, which triggers
the "does not cross L3 boundary" check.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
@@ -5475,7 +5475,7 @@ void destroy_perdomain_mapping(struct do
ASSERT(va >=