At 13:32 +0000 on 08 Nov (1320759148), Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 02:20 -0700 on 08 Nov (1320718835), Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 07.11.11 at 19:25, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, noticed this only now, but neither title nor description of this
> > are in sync with the actual patch.
>
>
> Indeed; they should be updated. But otherwise:
> Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
No, wait, that was the other patch, which I already acked!
ENOCOFFEE. :(
I have a few other comments on this patch...
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> index f75011e..cca64b8 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> @@ -4714,9 +4714,29 @@ long arch_memory_op(int op, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(void) arg)
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
> - xenmem_add_to_physmap(d, xatp);
> + if ( xatp.space != XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range )
> + xatp.size = 1;
> +
> + for ( ; xatp.size > 0; xatp.size-- )
> + {
> + if ( hypercall_preempt_check() )
> + {
> + rc = -EAGAIN;
> + break;
> + }
> + xenmem_add_to_physmap(d, xatp);
> + xatp.idx++;
> + xatp.gpfn++;
> + }
Having moved XATP into its own function, this loop probably belongs in
that function.
While I'm looking at it, updating two loop vars explicitly and one in
the header is a bit ugly - why not just use a while() and update all
three together?
> rcu_unlock_domain(d);
> + if ( rc == -EAGAIN )
> + {
> + if ( copy_to_guest(arg, &xatp, 1) )
> + return -EFAULT;
> + rc = hypercall_create_continuation(
> + __HYPERVISOR_memory_op, "ih", op, arg);
> + }
I think this might need some compat glue in
arch/x86/x86_64/compat/mm.c for it to work with 32-bit callers.
Tim.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home