>>> On 24.02.18 at 06:37, wrote:
> ... Sorry for the incomplete mail. I somehow hit the "send" button before I
> finish composing the previous mail. And now it continues...
>
> 2018-02-24 10:50 GMT+08:00 Zhongze Liu :
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> (Last week was the Chinese Spring Festival, so I failed to fol
... Sorry for the incomplete mail. I somehow hit the "send" button before I
finish composing the previous mail. And now it continues...
2018-02-24 10:50 GMT+08:00 Zhongze Liu :
> Hi Jan,
>
> (Last week was the Chinese Spring Festival, so I failed to follow up
> timely. Sorry for that.)
>
> 2018-02
Hi Jan,
(Last week was the Chinese Spring Festival, so I failed to follow up
timely. Sorry for that.)
2018-02-15 16:58 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
On 14.02.18 at 18:02, wrote:
>> 2018-02-14 16:37 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
>> On 14.02.18 at 08:15, wrote:
2018-02-13 23:26 GMT+08:00 Jan Be
>>> On 14.02.18 at 18:02, wrote:
> 2018-02-14 16:37 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
> On 14.02.18 at 08:15, wrote:
>>> 2018-02-13 23:26 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
>>> On 13.02.18 at 16:15, wrote:
> I've updated the comments according to your previous suggestions,
> do they look good to you?
Hi Jan,
2018-02-14 16:37 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
On 14.02.18 at 08:15, wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> 2018-02-13 23:26 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
>> On 13.02.18 at 16:15, wrote:
I've updated the comments according to your previous suggestions,
do they look good to you?
>>>
>>> The one i
>>> On 14.02.18 at 08:15, wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> 2018-02-13 23:26 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
> On 13.02.18 at 16:15, wrote:
>>> I've updated the comments according to your previous suggestions,
>>> do they look good to you?
>>
>> The one in the public header is way too verbose. I specifically don
Hi Jan,
2018-02-13 23:26 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
On 13.02.18 at 16:15, wrote:
>> I've updated the comments according to your previous suggestions,
>> do they look good to you?
>
> The one in the public header is way too verbose. I specifically don't
> see why you would need to spell out XSM
>>> On 13.02.18 at 16:15, wrote:
> I've updated the comments according to your previous suggestions,
> do they look good to you?
The one in the public header is way too verbose. I specifically don't
see why you would need to spell out XSM privilege requirements
there. Please make new comments mat
Hi Jan,
I've updated the comments according to your previous suggestions,
do they look good to you?
2018-02-01 18:23 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
On 30.01.18 at 18:50, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> @@ -4126,6 +4126,10 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap_one(
>>
Hi,
On 01/30/2018 05:50 PM, Zhongze Liu wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c
index 3c328e2df5..8e385d62a8 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c
@@ -1251,6 +1251,7 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap_one(
break;
case XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_foreign:
+
Hi Jan,
(Sorry for the late reply.)
2018-02-02 16:32 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
On 01.02.18 at 19:11, wrote:
>> 2018-02-01 18:23 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
>> On 30.01.18 at 18:50, wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
+++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
@@ -521,6 +521,12 @@ static X
>>> On 01.02.18 at 19:11, wrote:
> 2018-02-01 18:23 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
> On 30.01.18 at 18:50, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>>> @@ -521,6 +521,12 @@ static XSM_INLINE int
>>> xsm_map_gmfn_foreign(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain *d, str
>>>
Hi Jan,
2018-02-01 18:23 GMT+08:00 Jan Beulich :
On 30.01.18 at 18:50, wrote:
[...]
>> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h
>> @@ -521,6 +521,12 @@ static XSM_INLINE int
>> xsm_map_gmfn_foreign(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain *d, str
>> return xsm_default_acti
>>> On 30.01.18 at 18:50, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> @@ -4126,6 +4126,10 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap_one(
> }
> case XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_foreign:
> return p2m_add_foreign(d, idx, gfn_x(gpfn), extra.foreign_domid);
> +case XENMA
14 matches
Mail list logo
