Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] support protected mode mmio with non-zer

>>> Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 22.11.06 12:44 >>>
>On 22/11/06 11:24, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Yes, but it's also possibly incorrect if the machine is in "big
>>> realmode", which is an entirely valid way to run code in x86 processors,
>>> and I think it's better to fix it "properly" than to have to fix it
>>> again when someone finds another fault in the code, because someone
>>> wrote some code differently.
>> 
>> I meanwhile got convinced by Keir that this is indeed the better way.
>
>Actually I disagree with you, but the patch was a strict improvement so I

Maybe a mere misunderstanding - I meant to say that I got convinced to
have no real mode specific code there (and I changed my internal patch,
which got meanwhile extended quite a bit [will post later once I tested
VMX], accordingly).

>checked it in as-is. But the realmode-specific path will go away in a future
>patch, I'm quite sure.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

RE: [Xen-devel] more segment/selector handling woes, Petersson, Mats

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] make ballooning up to maxmem work, Glauber de Oliveira Costa

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] support protected mode mmio with non-zero CS base, Keir Fraser

Next by Thread:

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add dump entry point to Xend via HTTP, Daniel Veillard

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]