On 14/03/17 13:20, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 21/07/16 18:17, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> This series is RFC because it has only had compile testing thusfar. >> >> On AMD hardware supporting Debug Extentions, migration of a PV guest >> which is >> not currently using Debug Extentions fails, as the save side writes a >> X86_PV_VCPU_MSRS record with 0 content, which the receving side >> chokes on. >> >> It was alway the intention that such a record would be omitted, but that >> obviously didn't go as intended. >> >> Adjust the docs to clarify that such records should be omitted, but that >> receving sides should tolerate their presence. > > Last December you requested this series to be a blocker for Xen 4.9 > (see [1]). Do you have any update on the status?
As previously identified, my opinion is that the code as presented in v1 is correct, and there have been no reasonable arguments to the contrary. I can post v1 again, but it won't be altered. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
