At 10:30 -0700 on 25 Mar (1427279417), Ed White wrote:
> On 01/15/2015 10:46 AM, Ed White wrote:
> > On 01/15/2015 08:25 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> At 13:26 -0800 on 09 Jan (1420806392), Ed White wrote:
> >>> static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e)
> >>> {
> >>> -retu
On 01/15/2015 10:46 AM, Ed White wrote:
> On 01/15/2015 08:25 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> At 13:26 -0800 on 09 Jan (1420806392), Ed White wrote:
>>> static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e)
>>> {
>>> -return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
>>> +return (e->val
At 10:46 -0800 on 15 Jan (1421315210), Ed White wrote:
> On 01/15/2015 08:25 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At 13:26 -0800 on 09 Jan (1420806392), Ed White wrote:
> >> static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e)
> >> {
> >> -return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
>
On 01/15/2015 08:25 AM, Tim Deegan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At 13:26 -0800 on 09 Jan (1420806392), Ed White wrote:
>> static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e)
>> {
>> -return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
>> +return (e->valid != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
>
> This
Hi,
At 13:26 -0800 on 09 Jan (1420806392), Ed White wrote:
> static inline bool_t is_epte_valid(ept_entry_t *e)
> {
> -return (e->epte != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
> +return (e->valid != 0 && e->sa_p2mt != p2m_invalid);
This test for 0 is just catching uninitialised entries in fr
On 01/12/2015 09:45 AM, Ed White wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 08:43 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/01/15 21:26, Ed White wrote:
>>> In preparation for selectively enabling hardware #VE in a later patch,
>>> set suppress #VE on all EPTE's on #VE-capable hardware.
>>>
>>> Suppress #VE should always be t
On 01/12/2015 08:43 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/01/15 21:26, Ed White wrote:
>> In preparation for selectively enabling hardware #VE in a later patch,
>> set suppress #VE on all EPTE's on #VE-capable hardware.
>>
>> Suppress #VE should always be the default condition for two reasons:
>> it is
On 09/01/15 21:26, Ed White wrote:
> In preparation for selectively enabling hardware #VE in a later patch,
> set suppress #VE on all EPTE's on #VE-capable hardware.
>
> Suppress #VE should always be the default condition for two reasons:
> it is generally not safe to deliver #VE into a guest unles
In preparation for selectively enabling hardware #VE in a later patch,
set suppress #VE on all EPTE's on #VE-capable hardware.
Suppress #VE should always be the default condition for two reasons:
it is generally not safe to deliver #VE into a guest unless that guest
has been modified to receive it
