Hi George,
Did you have time to look at this patch?
Regards,
Alex
On 03.05.2019 11:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.05.19 at 09:53, wrote:
>> On 25.04.2019 15:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> It is an issue anyway that a change is
>>> made without saying why the new behavior preferable over
>>> the
>>> On 03.05.19 at 09:53, wrote:
> On 25.04.2019 15:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> It is an issue anyway that a change is
>> made without saying why the new behavior preferable over
>> the current one.
>
> So is there a way to continue with this?
Why not - I've not said I'm against, I've just asked
On 25.04.2019 15:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.04.19 at 16:46, wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:27:32PM +, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
>>> @@ -1053,15 +1053,11 @@ static void change_type_range(struct p2m_domain
>>> *p2m,
>>>* This should be revisited later, but for now
>>> On 24.04.19 at 16:46, wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:27:32PM +, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
>> @@ -1053,15 +1053,11 @@ static void change_type_range(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
>> * This should be revisited later, but for now post a warning.
>> */
>> if ( unlikely(end
On 4/24/19 5:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:27:32PM +, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
index 9e81a30cc4..27697d5a77 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ int
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:27:32PM +, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote:
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> index 9e81a30cc4..27697d5a77 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> @@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ int p2m_change_type_one(struct domain *d,
At this moment change_type_range() prints a warning in case end >
host_max_pfn. While this is unlikely to happen the function should
return a error and propagate it to the caller, hap_track_dirty_vram()
This patch makes change_type_range() return -EINVAL or 0 if all is ok.
Signed-off-by:
