RE: [Xen-devel] Weekly VMX status report. Xen: #18846 & Xen0: #749

["Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 13/12/2008 22:43, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> I think you agree that we don't need to keep guest 'actual' EFER.NX
>>> in sync with its 'shadow' EFER.NX?
>>> 
>> 
>> That should be okay. The fact we see the NX bit in the shadow page
>> tables means at least the BSP enabled NX. And I don't expect other
>> processors would do otherwise. In other words, such out-of-sync
>> situations be transient anyway. 
> 
> Attached is my proposed patch. Does it look okay to everyone?
> Haicheng: could you test if it gets rid of the HVM Solaris crash?
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Keir

Yes, we will test your patch and keep you posted with result. 

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