Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_XEN_COMPAT_030002 broken?

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not as far as I know.

On 14/11/06 13:02, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Oh, as I'm changing this - is there a reason for pmd_bad() to use PAGE_MASK
> rather than PTE_MASK? (I already agreed with Andi that pmd_bad() in native
> should be cleaned up to match pgd_bad/pud_bad). Jan
> 
>>>> Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 14.11.06 13:42 >>>
> On 14/11/06 12:32, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> Oh, good point! Okay then the more straightforward XENVER_version check will
>>> have to be used: 3.0.3 and newer, versus 3.0.2 and older.
>> 
>> More strait forward? The .3 is part of extraversion, so in order to do a
>> comparison
>> one would have to parse that string (and hence make certain assumptions).
>> That's
>> not nice for use in (early) feature detection. Maybe it'd be better to try
>> and
>> write
>> a page table entry without PAGE_USER, and check whether that bit got turned
>> on implicitly...
> 
> Yes, that sounds reasonable.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


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