This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn't get set when disabled

To: "Scott Parish" <srparish@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn't get set when disabled
From: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:02:28 -0700
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:45 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcVs+TjoX/X4zrqtSbirR33x01ZvJAAAQ9BA
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn't get set when disabled
Scott Parish wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:23:47PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> I'm not inclined to take patches for xen/x86_64/pci-dma.c anyway: I
>> think we can patch the xen/i386 one and share it with xen/x86_64.
>> Otherwise we're going to get unnecessary divergence between what
>> really ought to be two identical files. (I already did this for
>> arch/xen/i386/kernel/time.c, for example.)
> The attached patch unifies pci-dma.c and adds the pte_mfn() macro.
> The one thing that might need an explanation, there's 4 lines of
> changes (walking the page table) that add parentheses. The x86_64
> compiler doesn't seem to like doing unparenthesized math for function
> arguments. 
> Boot tested dom0 on x86_64 and x86_32 (non-pae)
> sRp

Looks good. That's the right thing.

BTW, I thought I found a bug in phys_pud_init(), but it's not.

Intel Open Source Technology Center

Xen-devel mailing list