Re: [Xen-devel] NMI deferral on i386

To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] NMI deferral on i386
From:	Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 15:17:19 +0100
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 07:16:19 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<4651C258.76E4.0078.0@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:	Acebsr2N/CczEwelEdyWFwAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] NMI deferral on i386
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214

On 21/5/07 15:01, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think I found a pretty reasonable solution, which I'm attaching in its
> current
> (3.1-based) form, together with the prior (untested) variant that copied the
> NMI behavior. Even if it doesn't apply to -unstable, I'd be glad if you could
> have a brief look to see whether you consider the approach too intrusive (in
> which case there would be no point in trying to bring it forward to
> -unstable).

You'll have to explain how the changes to the x86_32 entry.S work. The rest
of the patch looks good.

 -- Keir


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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] NMI deferral on i386