On 02/08/2017 07:20 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/02/17 17:08, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>> On 02/08/2017 06:25 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
>>> mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is currently possible for the guest to lock
On 08/02/17 17:08, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 02/08/2017 06:25 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
>> mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It is currently possible for the guest to lock when subscribing
>> to synchronous vm_events if
On 02/08/2017 06:25 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
> mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>> wrote:
>
> It is currently possible for the guest to lock when subscribing
> to synchronous vm_events if max_vcpus is larger than the
> number of
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Razvan Cojocaru
wrote:
> It is currently possible for the guest to lock when subscribing
> to synchronous vm_events if max_vcpus is larger than the
> number of available ring buffer slots. This patch no longer
> blocks already paused VCPUs, fixing the issue for thi
It is currently possible for the guest to lock when subscribing
to synchronous vm_events if max_vcpus is larger than the
number of available ring buffer slots. This patch no longer
blocks already paused VCPUs, fixing the issue for this use
case.
Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru
---
xen/common/vm_e
