WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix memory exchange hypercall.

To: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix memory exchange hypercall.
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:08:07 +0000
Cc: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:06:23 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070316032517.GC4444%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcdnojqreQCnwtOVEduq+wAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix memory exchange hypercall.
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
On 16/3/07 03:25, "Isaku Yamahata" <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The ia64 p2m already adopted the first option without warning.
> So the guest_physmap_remove_page() depends on PGC_allocated bit.
> What's the expected behavior of guset_physmap_remove_page() with
> PGC_allocated? It shouldn't touch the bit?
> 
> Thanks a lot for your clarification.

I don't think that guest_physmap_remove_page() should need to touch the
PGC_allocated bit. All callers of that function can take responsibility for
the page they unhook (that's the case for all the callers from common code,
at least). I'm more worried about callers of guest_physmap_add_page(): it
may not be obvious to users of that function if they have to take
responsibility for what used to be mapped at that pseudophysical address!

 -- Keir


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