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] Re: xsm: Consolidate xsm processing within domain contro

To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>, <ncmike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: xsm: Consolidate xsm processing within domain control hypercall.
From: "George S. Coker, II" <gscoker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:23:07 -0500
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:42:53 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1196805907.19310.70.camel@lappy>
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: Acg2xD5+fRlFoKK3EdyuhQAWy5GONg==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Re: xsm: Consolidate xsm processing within domain control hypercall.
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618


On 12/4/07 5:05 PM, "Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 16:49 -0500, Mike D. Day wrote:
>> On 04/12/07 13:06 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> 
>>>   Does this work right across a PV domain save/restore on x86?  On ia64
>>> I end up with "Domain-Unnamed" after I save a PV domain and another
>>> after I restore it, then do a shutdown.  Reverting this patch restores
>>> correct behavior.  Thanks,
>> 
>> I'll investigate this regression. Do you have any ideas as to why this
>> is happening?
> 
>    Nope, that's why I'm hoping x86 does something similar ;^)  Since I'm
> not using XSM_ENABLE, xsm_call should just be (0), which means the
> changed code should all be noops... but apparently something changes.
> BTW, xsm_call(domctl(domctl)) seems unnecessarily obfuscated.  Thanks,
> 

It does build on x86, but I'm confident it will rollover on boot.

> Alex

-- 
George S. Coker, II <gscoker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



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

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