On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.07.11 at 13:34, Stefano Stabellini
> >>> <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 25.07.11 at 12:54, Stefano Stabellini
> >> >>> <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> > I would just let you know that I found a regression in the hypervisor:
> >> > CS 23573 causes PV on HVM guests to hang during boot.
> >> Any details (e.g. state of the guest, messages from the hypervisor)
> >> that might help finding out what the problem is? I'm not aware that I
> >> intentionally changed anything behavior-wise in the pv-on-hvm specific
> >> code
> > I think that 23573 introduced a problem similar to the one solved by
> > 23550, that is hvm_domain_use_pirq returns a subtly wrong answer.
> Hmm, indeed, seems like I failed to remove the check of the assigned
> event channel when I merged my patch with the changes from 23550.
> Could you give the below a try?
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> @@ -1991,6 +1991,5 @@ int unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq(struct doma
> bool_t hvm_domain_use_pirq(const struct domain *d, const struct pirq *pirq)
> return is_hvm_domain(d) && pirq &&
> - pirq->arch.hvm.emuirq != IRQ_UNBOUND &&
> - pirq->evtchn != 0;
> + pirq->arch.hvm.emuirq != IRQ_UNBOUND;
even though it is certainly a good change, it is not enough to fix the
Xen-devel mailing list