On 07/23/2018 01:29 PM, George Dunlap wrote: > It's possible my analysis is wrong there (I'm not intimately familiar > with the code), but I think my patch is better anyway for a couple of > reasons: > > * The logic to keep EPTP_INDEX in sync is explicit, and all in the same > file. > > * It doesn't do unnecessary updates to other bits of state > > * If we ever have reason to call vmx_vcpu_update_vmfunc_ve() directly, > we won't re-introduce this bug. (Or to put it a different way: We don't > have to remember that we can't call it directly.)
Very good reasons, and I completely agree. Thanks again for your help! Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
