On 29/04/2020 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.04.2020 15:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 20/04/2020 15:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.04.2020 17:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c
>>>> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d)
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 1;
>>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = 1;
>>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = 1;
>>>>
>>>> for_each_vcpu( d, v )
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d)
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> undo_and_fail:
>>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>> for_each_vcpu( d, v )
>>>> {
>>>> free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
>>>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *d)
>>>> d->arch.ctxt_switch = &pv_csw;
>>>>
>>>> /* 64-bit PV guest by default. */
>>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>> Switch to true/false while you're touching these?
>> Yes, but I'm tempted to delete these lines in the final hunk. Its
>> writing zeros into a zeroed structures.
> Oh, yes, agreed.
Can I take this as an ack then?
~Andrew
