Re: [Xen-devel] Question on save/restore mfn canonicalization

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, it's just the way it got written long ago. It isn't as nice as it
could be, but it can't be changed now.

 -- Keir

On 28/9/07 19:55, "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" <andreslc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, when you're in school you don't have to care about breaking ABI's :)
> So, the answer is then "no particular reason"?
> Andres
> John Levon wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:25:28PM -0400, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> While exploring the paravirt save/restore code path, I noted a
>>> (seemingly) lack of consistency between where/who canonicalizes
>>> something and who un-canonicalizes. For example, the guest kernel
>>> canonicalizes the store and console mfn's in pre_suspend, but
>>> xc_domain_restore uncanonicalizes them before scheduling back the
>>> restored guest.
>>> The question is if there is a mandatory reason for this, or is just the
>>> way the code was written. Can I, e.g, fill the
>>> pfn_to_mfn_frame_list(_list) entries from "outside" and remove that code
>>> from post_suspend, or will something break?
>>>     
>> 
>> You'll break the ABI. I don't know of a reason why it's so inconsistent.
>> 
>> regards
>> john
>>   
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



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