Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: add an extra check when validating

To:	Michael J Coss <mjcoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: add an extra check when validating a huge pv L2 entry
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:35:33 +0100
Cc:
Delivery-date:	Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:36:45 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<4AA7D4AE.7080606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcoxaN7+9sv8JDYXSFO05JQviOUolQACw/DW
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: add an extra check when validating a huge pv L2 entry
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605

On 09/09/2009 17:15, "Michael J Coss" <mjcoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Oh, yes - I got confused (again) by the inconsistencies in what return
>> values mean for the various functions.
>> 
>> Jan
>>   
> I don't think that that's correct.  The else clause is for the
> mfn_valid(m) failure case, and it seems appropriate to set the rc to
> some non-zero value.

You're confused - look at the surrounding context of the patch. Anyway, I
ultimately checked in soemthing even clearer, as c/s 20189.

 K.

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: add an extra check when validating a huge p