[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Xen-devel] Testing status of HVM (Intel VT) on 64bit XENunstable c/s 11616


  • To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steven Hand" <Steven.Hand@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:11:51 +0800
  • Cc: Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:12:39 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcbiX/dCl47hhqk4QlmBoVzG91vWrQAgKhIAAACK0s4AC2Ge0A==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Testing status of HVM (Intel VT) on 64bit XENunstable c/s 11616

 >This is probably because vmx_vmexit_handler() takes its regs 
>argument 'by
>value'. I expect the compiler has therefore decided it can 
>optimise away
>some writes to that argument because the result of the write 
>is not used
>inside vmx_vmexit_handler and it assumes the caller will discard the
>argument on return. Hence why this went away with a debug build -- we
>optimise less aggressively.
>
>Either the writeback needs to happen explicitly via
>guest_cpu_user_regs()-returned pointer. Or, more simply, we change the
>vmx_vmexit_handler interface. It'll have negligible cost to 
>pass a pointer.
>

Pretty clear and reasonable to me :-) 
Thanks
-Xin

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.