On 18.09.2019 13:55, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 18/09/2019 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.09.2019 21:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 17/09/2019 07:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat
32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this
On 18/09/2019 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.09.2019 21:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 17/09/2019 07:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat
>>> 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard.
>> Well, other than the fact this setting is
On 17.09.2019 21:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/09/2019 07:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat
>> 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard.
>
> Well, other than the fact this setting is only read for a 64bit guest...
How come?
On 17/09/2019 07:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat
> 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard.
Well, other than the fact this setting is only read for a 64bit guest...
The reason it isn't set for 32bit guests is that there is no
I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat
32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné
--- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c
@@ -180,7 +180,24 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d)