At 12:48 +0000 on 28 Nov (1480337304), Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 28/11/16 12:04, Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 11:13 +0000 on 28 Nov (1480331605), Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> + /* > >> * NB. We do not unshadow on X86EMUL_EXCEPTION. It's not clear that it > >> * would be a good unshadow hint. If we *do* decide to > >> unshadow-on-fault > >> * then it must be 'failable': we cannot require the unshadow to > >> succeed. > >> */ > >> - if ( r == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE ) > >> + if ( r == X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE || emul_ctxt.ctxt.event_pending ) > > No thank you. The comment there explains why we don't want to > > unshadow for an injection; please let it stand. Or if the new > > semantics have changed, update the comment. > > This addition is no functional behavioural change from before, which is > the point I was trying to get across.
I can understand why you want to do it that way but it makes the series (and this code!) read quite oddly. If you keep this, then please add a second comment above this line that explains why the code temporarily disagrees with the first comment. :) You can delete that comment again in patch #13. With that, Acked-by: Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel