RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]

["Ling, Xiaofeng" <xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Is this patch acceptable? 
If yes, I'll continue to work out the other splitted patch.

Xiaofeng Ling <mailto:xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'd like to split the patch into small ones, so that it can be
> clearer. Attach is the patch of adding support copy_to/from_guest.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Ling <xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>   arch/x86/x86_32/usercopy.c       |   99
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   arch/x86/x86_64/usercopy.c       |   15 +++++
>   include/asm-x86/x86_32/uaccess.h |    5 +
>   include/asm-x86/x86_64/uaccess.h |    5 +
>   4 files changed, 124 insertions(+)
> 
> 
> Ling, Xiaofeng wrote:
>> 
>> Keir Fraser <mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 Jun 2005, at 03:40, Xiaofeng Ling wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It's now all use shadow_mode_external, and use a permit bitmap for
>>>> hypercall from vmx domain. Do you think it's now acceptable?
>>>> It's against 1657.
>>> guest
>>> Still messy imo. When I said to split the path by
>>> shadow_mode_externel, I meant you should do it within the uaccess
>>> macros/functions; not in their callers.  guest
>> 
>> I've already done that for copy_from/to_user, but for
>> __copy_from/to_user I can not do that, because not all the caller
>> shall call copy_from/to_guest

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