WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] x86_64/page.h L1_DISALLOW_MASK, etc

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Xen-devel] x86_64/page.h L1_DISALLOW_MASK, etc
From: Karen White <kawhite@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:15:08 -0600
Delivery-date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:07:50 +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
In xen/include/asm-x86/x86_64/page.h, it appears the #defines for
L1_DISALLOW_MASK, L2_DISALLOW_MASK, etc. have the assignment backwards
in the conditional test.  The current code appears to be setting the NX
bit if the cpu does not have the NX feature, as opposed to if it does.

I have attached a patch of how I would change it to see if others agree.

Also, what exactly is being set when setting the 3 bits for the
L2_DISALLOW_MASK, L3_DISALLOW_MASK, and L4_DISALLOW_MASK definitions?

Karen

Attachment: page.disallow.patch
Description: Text Data

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>