On 15.07.2025 13:04, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 12:47:15PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.07.2025 12:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 06:09:27PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
We're generally striving to minimize behavioral differences between PV
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 12:47:15PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.07.2025 12:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 06:09:27PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> We're generally striving to minimize behavioral differences between PV
> >> and PVH Dom0. Using is_memory_hole() in the PV
On 15.07.2025 12:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 06:09:27PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> We're generally striving to minimize behavioral differences between PV
>> and PVH Dom0. Using is_memory_hole() in the PVH case looks quite a bit
>> weaker to me, compared to the page owners
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 06:09:27PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> We're generally striving to minimize behavioral differences between PV
> and PVH Dom0. Using is_memory_hole() in the PVH case looks quite a bit
> weaker to me, compared to the page ownership check done in the PV case.
> Change checking
