>>> On 24.06.15 at 18:31, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c > @@ -682,24 +682,47 @@ void arch_domain_unpause(struct domain *d) > viridian_time_ref_count_thaw(d); > } > > -unsigned long pv_guest_cr4_fixup(const struct vcpu *v, unsigned long > guest_cr4) > +/* > + * These are the masks of CR4 bits (subject to hardware availability) which a > + * PV guest may not legitimiately attempt to modify. > + */ > +static unsigned long __read_mostly pv_cr4_mask, compat_pv_cr4_mask;
The patch generally being fine, I still wonder why you chose to use "pv" in the names instead of the previous "hv": To me, the latter makes more sense: "the bits the hypervisor controls" instead of "the bits pv guests do not control". Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
