>>> On 09.07.15 at 11:00, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> Sent: 09 July 2015 09:53 >> >>> On 03.07.15 at 18:25, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c >> > @@ -266,6 +266,15 @@ static int hvmemul_acquire_page(unsigned long >> gmfn, struct page_info **page) >> > return X86EMUL_RETRY; >> > } >> > >> > + /* This code should not be reached if the gmfn is not RAM */ >> > + if ( p2m_is_mmio(p2mt) ) >> > + { >> > + domain_crash(curr_d); >> > + >> > + put_page(*page); >> > + return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE; >> > + } >> > + >> > return X86EMUL_OKAY; >> > } >> >> Does this change really belong here, not in an earlier patch? >> > > It could be, but it's always been in this patch because this is the one > where I apparently remove code that handled MMIO <-> MMIO copying so I think > it's most illustrative to leave it here.
Okay then. >> > + if ( !s->cache ) >> > + goto done; >> >> Why is this not being dealt with by stdvga_mem_accept()? >> > > Because, as the big lock comment below states: > > "Single-cycle write transactions are accepted even if the cache is > not active since we can assert, when in stdvga mode, that writes > to VRAM have no side effect and thus we can try to buffer them" Ah, right, thanks for connecting the two together for me. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
