Hi Stefano,
On 11/12/18 11:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 11/6/18 2:20 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/11/2018 17:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
On 02/11/2018 23:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
+ /*
+ * Now that the work on the entry is done, set the valid bit to
prevent
+ * another fault on that entry.
+ */
+ resolved = true;
+ entry.p2m.valid = 1;
+
+ p2m_write_pte(table + offsets[level], entry, p2m->clean_pte);
+
+ /*
+ * No need to flush the TLBs as the modified entry had the
valid bit
+ * unset.
+ */
+
+out_unmap:
+ unmap_domain_page(table);
+
+out:
+ p2m_write_unlock(p2m);
+
+ return resolved;
+}
+
static inline int p2m_insert_mapping(struct domain *d,
gfn_t start_gfn,
unsigned long nr,
We probably want to update the comment on top of the call to
p2m_resolve_translation_fault:
Whoops. I will fix it.
Looking at this again. I think the comment on top of the call to
p2m_resolve_translation_fault still makes sense. Feel free to suggest an
update of the comment if you think it is not enough.
/*
* The PT walk may have failed because someone was playing with
* the Stage-2 page table or because the valid bit was left
* unset to track memory accesses. In these cases, we want to
* return to the guest.
*/
Thank you for the suggestion. Thinking a bit more, I would not be
surprised we decide to expand p2m_resolve_translation_fault in the
future. So I decided to go for a more generic comment to avoid stale
comment:
/*
* First check if the translation fault can be resolved by the
* P2M subsystem. If that's the case nothing else to do.
*/
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel