>>> Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 29.05.06 16:59 >>>
>
>On 29 May 2006, at 15:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> Since there was no reply to an earlier inquiry regarding this, here's
>> a patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>safe_halt() should simply be HYPERVISOR_block() -- the hypercall
>implicitly reenables interrupt delivery for the calling VCPU, so no
>need to call __sti() explicitly.
>
>halt() is a bit trickier -- given that it is executed (as far as I can
>tell) only in contexts where the CPU has reached "end of life" (it's
>crashed, or offlined, or shut down for some other reason) it might make
>sense to define halt() as VCPUOP_down. Or, just in case it is used in
>places with interrupts still enabled, where the CPU may have a future:
>#define halt() (irqs_disabled() ? HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_down) :
>HYPERVISOR_block())
Indeed, this was the behavior I intended, but somehow I failed to find the
VCPUOP_down operation that I was looking
for. Here's an updated patch.
Jan
xenlinux-x86-better-halt.patch
Description: Text document
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home