On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:35:46PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 10/11/2014 09:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
> > kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and renames the function to kvm_is_reserved_pfn.
> >
> > The problem being addressed by th
On 21/11/2014 14:18, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:06:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21/11/2014 12:46, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> Hi Paolo,
>>>
>>> I think these look good, would you mind queueing them as either a fix or
>>> for 3.19 as you see fit, assuming
On 10/11/2014 09:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
> kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and renames the function to kvm_is_reserved_pfn.
>
> The problem being addressed by the patch above was that some ARM code
> based the memory mapping attributes of
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:06:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 21/11/2014 12:46, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > I think these look good, would you mind queueing them as either a fix or
> > for 3.19 as you see fit, assuming you agree with the content?
>
> Ah, I was thinki
On 21/11/2014 12:46, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> I think these look good, would you mind queueing them as either a fix or
> for 3.19 as you see fit, assuming you agree with the content?
Ah, I was thinking _you_ would queue them for 3.19.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Hi Paolo,
I think these look good, would you mind queueing them as either a fix or
for 3.19 as you see fit, assuming you agree with the content?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() i
On 10 November 2014 09:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
> kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and renames the function to kvm_is_reserved_pfn.
>
> The problem being addressed by the patch above was that some ARM code
> based the memory mapping attribute
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
> On 10 November 2014 11:53, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> Hi Ard,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
>>> kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and rename
On 10 November 2014 11:53, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
>> kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and renames the function to kvm_is_reserved_pfn.
>>
>> The problem being addr
Hi Ard,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:56AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
> kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and renames the function to kvm_is_reserved_pfn.
>
> The problem being addressed by the patch above was that some ARM code
> based the
This reverts commit 85c8555ff0 ("KVM: check for !is_zero_pfn() in
kvm_is_mmio_pfn()") and renames the function to kvm_is_reserved_pfn.
The problem being addressed by the patch above was that some ARM code
based the memory mapping attributes of a pfn on the return value of
kvm_is_mmio_pfn(), whose
11 matches
Mail list logo
