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

[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Unmmap guest's EPT mapping for poison memory


  • To: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:41:42 +0800
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 06:42:24 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: ActTSOqB+gp/LKc5SLaoFhpinuJagAAAHBVw
  • Thread-topic: [PATCH] Unmmap guest's EPT mapping for poison memory

Thanks for review. I will re-send it as patch submission.

Thanks
--jyh

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Deegan [mailto:Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:38 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong
>Cc: Keir Fraser; xen-devel
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unmmap guest's EPT mapping for poison memory
>
>At 10:19 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284373193), Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
>> I'm not sure if the change to the _gfn_to_mfn_type() is
>> acceptable. Especially, if it is right to change the mfn to be
>> INVALID_MFN. The idea to change the mfn to be INVALID_MFN is, we don't
>> need to change every caller for broken type (I noticed the PoD/sharing
>> etc checked each caller), but depends on caller will check the mfn to
>> be valid or not.
>
>That's fine.  All callers _should_ check the type but there's no harm in
>changing the mfn as a double precaution, even if everything else was right.
>
>Acked-by: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>--
>Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering
>Citrix Systems UK Ltd.  (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)

_______________________________________________
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®.