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] current not very current (vs curr_vcpu)

To: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] current not very current (vs curr_vcpu)
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:03:04 +0000
Cc: "Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:04:02 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100223114646.70e196ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acq0wQ0BEWm+IryaTBab+4z7DGRfBwACooZ5
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] current not very current (vs curr_vcpu)
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
On 23/02/2010 19:46, "Mukesh Rathor" <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> struct cpu_user_regs *regs = guest_cpu_user_regs(); <------
> 
> The cpu is clearly running idle_vcpu, so current is correctly pointing
> to idle vcpu. But guest_mode() is showing guest mode incorrectly.
> 
> I'm not much familiar with ns16550 stuff, so cant' think of a fix other
> than just setting regs to current stack pointer in ns16550_poll().
> 
> __asm__ ( "movq %%rsp,%0" : "=r" (val));
> struct cpu_user_regs *regs = val;
> 
> Let me know if you like the fix and I'll submit a patch.

Given the only thing this apparently affected was some of your own ad-hoc
debug code, do we really care about this at all? We can probably happily
just leave it.

 -- Keir



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