>>> On 02.11.15 at 15:32, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 06:53 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > > On 30.10.15 at 19:33, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > --- a/xen/common/memory.c >> > +++ b/xen/common/memory.c >> > @@ -818,6 +818,10 @@ long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, >> > XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg) >> > if ( unlikely(start_extent >= reservation.nr_extents) ) >> > return start_extent; >> > >> > + if ( unlikely(!opt_pod_enabled) && >> > + (reservation.mem_flags & XENMEMF_populate_on_demand) ) >> > + return start_extent; >> >> A few lines down we can see that XENMEMF_populate_on_demand >> gets honored only for XENMEM_populate_physmap. Perhaps you >> shouldn't fail the other two which ignore the flag anyway? > > Setting an unexpected flag surely ought to be an error? Admittedly that > particular ship may have sailed WRT this public ABI.
Without that latter aspect I would certainly answer the question with "Yes". Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
