Re: [Xen-devel] hap_domctl

To:	John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] hap_domctl
From:	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:57:00 +0100
Delivery-date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:54:06 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<20070423235929.GA18297@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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:	AceGRiM3YhJF4vI5EduGJQAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] hap_domctl
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214

On 24/4/07 00:59, "John Levon" <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 494 int hap_domctl(struct domain *d, xen_domctl_shadow_op_t *sc,
> 495                XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) u_domctl)
> 513     case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_ENABLE:
> 514         HAP_ERROR("Bad hap domctl op %u\n", sc->op);
> 515         domain_crash(d);
> 516         return -EINVAL;
> 
> Line 515 looks very peculiar to me. Why are we punishing a domU for a
> mistake in dom0?

Looks pretty stupid. But harmless.

 -- Keir



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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] hap_domctl