>>> On 24.11.16 at 18:19, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 24/11/16 17:08, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 24.11.16 at 18:00, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> But wouldn't you then need to add similar checks in OKAY paths elsewhere? >>> I don't see why I would. Does my explanation above resolve your concern? >> I'm afraid not: On the same basis as above, code not expecting to >> handle swint may now see OKAY together with event_pending set, >> and would need to indicate failure to their callers just like you do in >> sh_page_fault(). > > That is my intent with the current code. I have double checked it, and > it still looks correct.
Then what about the handling immediately after the x86_emulate() invocation in _hvm_emulate_one()? Apart from that I've now also convinced myself that you handle all existing callers. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
