>>> On 24.06.15 at 05:05, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 06/23/2015 09:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 20.06.15 at 05:09, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c >>> @@ -2652,7 +2652,7 @@ int vcpu_destroy_pagetables(struct vcpu *v) >>> if ( rc ) >>> return rc; >>> >>> - if ( is_pv_32on64_vcpu(v) ) >>> + if ( is_pv_32on64_vcpu(v) && !is_pvh_vcpu(v) ) >> This looks wrong - is_pv_32on64_vcpu() should imply is_pv_vcpu() >> and hence !is_pvh_vcpu(). > > > That's because I kept > d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 1; > in switch_compat() for both PV and PVH. I should probably only set > has_32bit_shinfo for PVH.
Right. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
