> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Cooper > Sent: 28 November 2016 12:58 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Xen-devel <xen- > de...@lists.xen.org> > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Tim (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Jun > Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/19] x86/hvm: Avoid __hvm_copy() raising #PF > behind the emulators back > > On 28/11/16 11:56, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: 28 November 2016 11:14 > >> To: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org> > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan Beulich > >> <jbeul...@suse.com>; Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; Tim > >> (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Jun Nakajima <jun.nakaj...@intel.com>; > Kevin > >> Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 17/19] x86/hvm: Avoid __hvm_copy() raising #PF > behind > >> the emulators back > >> > >> Drop the call to hvm_inject_page_fault() in __hvm_copy(), and require > >> callers > >> to inject the pagefault themselves. > >> > >> No functional change. > > That's not the way it looks on the face of it. You've indeed removed the > > call > to hvm_inject_page_fault() but some of the callers now call > x86_emul_pagefault(). I'd call that a functional change... clearly the change > you intended, but still a functional change. > > Hmm - I suppose I am confusing no functional change in the hypervisor > with no functional change as observed by a guest. >
Yes, I was thinking from the PoV of someone looking at this patch years later and saying 'hang on a minute...'. Saying 'no guest-observable behavioural change' is much clearer I think. Paul > ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
