RE: [Xen-devel] question about patch 13252

["Lu, Guanqun" <guanqun.lu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, March 20, 2009 1:07 AM Keir Fraser wrote:

> On 19/03/2009 14:58, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> If Jan can counter my claim, then you can instead switch back to the
>>> non-compat GDT for the LTR, or you can decide which descriptor to
>>> set B in based on which GDT you're running on, or force the B bit
>>> in both descriptors after the LTR, or... You have a few options. :-)
>> 
>> Correct. I wonder why you're running on the compat GDT in the first
>> place - is your Dom0 32-bit? If that's the case, then the clearing
>> of the bit that must exist somewhere simply should be extended to
>> touch the current GDT 
>> rather than the default one.
> 
> I fixed this issue as c/s 19400. I just temporarily switch over to the
> non-compat GDT to do the LTR. Guanqun: please can you test this?
> 
>  -- Keir

BTW:

the patch 19400 is incomplete:


diff -r e1562a36094e xen/arch/x86/acpi/suspend.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/suspend.c   Thu Mar 19 17:04:06 2009 +0000
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/suspend.c   Fri Mar 20 13:27:17 2009 +0800
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ void restore_rest_processor_state(void)
 void restore_rest_processor_state(void)
 {
     struct vcpu *v = current;
+#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
+    struct tss_struct *t = &init_tss[smp_processor_id()];
+#endif

     load_TR();


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