On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:31 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > Andrew validly points out that even if these masks aren't a formal part > of the hypercall interface, we aren't free to change them: A guest > suspended for migration in the middle of a continuation would fail to > work if resumed on a hypervisor using a different value. Hence add > respective comments to their definitions. > > Additionally, to help future extensibility as well as in the spirit of > reducing undefined behavior as much as possible, refuse hypercalls made > with the respective bits non-zero when the respective sub-ops don't > make use of those bits. > > Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Ian Campbell <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
