|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 16/20] PVH xen: Miscellaneous changes
>>> On 15.05.13 at 02:52, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> @@ -64,9 +64,10 @@ long domctl_memory_mapping(struct domain *d, unsigned long
> gfn,
>
> if ( add_map )
> {
> - printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> - "memory_map:add: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> - d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
> + if ( !is_pvh_domain(d) ) /* PVH maps lots and lots */
> + printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> + "memory_map:add: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> + d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
>
> ret = iomem_permit_access(d, mfn, mfn + nr_mfns - 1);
> if ( !ret && paging_mode_translate(d) )
> @@ -91,9 +92,10 @@ long domctl_memory_mapping(struct domain *d, unsigned long
> gfn,
> }
> else
> {
> - printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> - "memory_map:remove: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> - d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
> + if ( !is_pvh_domain(d) ) /* PVH unmaps lots and lots */
> + printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> + "memory_map:remove: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> + d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
>
> if ( paging_mode_translate(d) )
> for ( i = 0; i < nr_mfns; i++ )
Are these changes still necessary? IOW why would a PVH guest be
mapping so much more MMIO memory than a PV one?
> @@ -1304,6 +1306,11 @@ void arch_get_info_guest(struct vcpu *v,
> vcpu_guest_context_u c)
> c.nat->gs_base_kernel = hvm_get_shadow_gs_base(v);
> }
> }
> + else if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) )
> + {
> + /* pvh fixme: punt it to phase II */
> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "PVH: fixme: arch_get_info_guest()\n");
> + }
Please at least clear out all state that doesn't get properly obtained
(short of being able to return an error).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |