On 14/09/16 16:11, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:38 AM, George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>
>> On 13/09/16 19:12, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>> Setting response flags in vm_event are only ever safe if the vCPUs are
>>> To reflect this we move all checks within the if block that already checks
>>> whether this is the case. Checks that are only supported on one architecture
>>> we relocate the bitmask operations to the arch-specific handlers to avoid
>>> the overhead on architectures that don't support it.
>>> Furthermore, we clean-up the emulation checks so it more clearly represents
>>> decision-logic when emulation should take place. As part of this we also
>>> set the stage to allow emulation in response to other types of events, not
>>> mem_access violations.
>>> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.leng...@zentific.com>
>> Would you like a detailed review from me for this? I'm happy to ack the
>> p2m bits on the basis that they're only touching mem_access code. A
>> full review may get stuck behind a pretty long review backlog. :-(
> Hi George,
> acking just the p2m bits should suffice!
I should have given that in the first e-mail really. :-)
Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>
Xen-devel mailing list