 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] TLB flushing
| To: | <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] TLB flushing |
| From: | "Ky Srinivasan" <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:28:37 -0700 |
| Delivery-date: | Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:28:28 -0800 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| 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 |
Looking at the do_mmuext_op(), it looks like we are not handling shadow mode uniformly : For instance, for MMUEXT_INVLPG_LOCAL case, we deal with the case where the domain may be operating under shadow mode; however, for other flush options we don't deal with the case where the domain may be operating in shadow mode. What is the rationale for this? Regards, K. Y _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] PG_foreign undeclared in mm/page_alloc.c, Bruce Montague |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] event TRC_MEM_PAGE_GRANT_TRANSFER, Keir Fraser |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] PG_foreign undeclared in mm/page_alloc.c, Bruce Montague |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] TLB flushing, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
