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

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

Li, Haicheng wrote:
> 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

Hi Keir,

We tested your patch, it does fix the bug of HVM Solaris crash, viz. SMP 64bit 
Solaris10u5 HVM can boot up successfully with your patch applied. Thanks.



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