>>> On 17.10.17 at 12:38, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 16/10/17 17:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 16.10.17 at 18:07, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> On 16/10/17 16:41, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> >>> On 16.10.17 at 16:38, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c >>>>> @@ -614,6 +614,7 @@ static int __init pvh_setup_cpus(struct domain *d, >>>>> paddr_t entry, >>>>> >>>>> update_domain_wallclock_time(d); >>>>> >>>>> + v->is_initialised = 1; >>>>> clear_bit(_VPF_down, &v->pause_flags); >>>> How come this has no counterpart of code being deleted? >>> Because the bug is that it was never being set before. >> Oh, I see - I had read that part of the commit message in slightly >> a wrong way. >> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > How about this for an adjusted commit message? > > * x86 PVH previously was not setting v->is_initialised for d0v0, despite > setting the vcpu running eventually. Therefore, a later VCPUOP_initialise > hypercall will modify state under the feet of the running vcpu. This is > latent as PVH dom0 construction don't yet function.
Yes, thanks. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
