On 11/11/15 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote: > Add a definition for the (for now unused) protection key related error > code bit, moving our own custom ones out of the way. In the course of > checking the uses of the latter I realized that while right now they > can only get set on their own, callers would better not depend on that > property and check just for the bit rather than matching the entire > value. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
For the code presented, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > --- > RFC because I noticed that nothing seems to ever set PFEC_page_paged, > so I wonder whether we really need that flag. It is set in hap_p2m_ga_to_gfn() for frames with types of P2M_PAGING_TYPES Did you miss this, or wish to imply that it is actually dead code? > > It also seems to me that the part of paging_gva_to_gfn() dealing with > the nested case can't be quite right: Neither is there any check after > mode->gva_to_gfn() (namely ignoring INVALID_GFN being returned), nor > does the handling of the two involved error code values seem > reasonable. One of the many reasons why nested HVM can't be expected to > reach "supported" state any time soon, I guess. I concur. Yet another item on the "nested" todo list. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
