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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: allow NMI injection

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: allow NMI injection
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:15:58 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:15:21 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <45E581EF.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
Thread-index: AcdbOpWh1Aw7lMctEduA9AAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: allow NMI injection
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 28/2/07 12:21, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Notably this patch changes the way that a NMI handler is registered to use
>> the native-like vector 2. This changes the guest interface though. Do you
> 
> But only in a benign fashion - registering the old way is still possible,
> registering through set_trap_table now works where it previously didn't.
> 
>> really need to be able to specify a custom CS? Can you not vector to the
>> flat CS and then far jump?
> 
> I probably could, but I'm generally opposed to making assumptions about
> the guest where this is unnecessary (i.e. I dislike all callback pointers
> registered without selectors).

Oh I see. That sounds reasonable.

vcpu_op() isn't perhaps a great match but then neither is physdev_op()
really. I'll have a think about which is better.

 -- Keir


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>