>>> On 16.01.17 at 06:25, <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote: > One thing noted though. The original patch from Quan is actually orthogonal > to this ASSERT. Regardless of whether intack.vector is larger or smaller > than pt_vector, we always require the trick as long as pt_vector is not the > one being currently programmed to RVI.
I don't think the ASSERT() addition is orthogonal: It exchanges intack.vector for pt_vector in the invocation of vmx_set_eoi_exit_bitmap(), and during discussion of the patch there at least intermediately was max() of the two used instead. It was - iirc - one of you who suggested that the use of max() there is unnecessary, which the ASSERT() triggering has now shown is wrong. > Then do we want to revert the whole > commit until the problem is finally fixed, or OK to just remove ASSERT > (or replace with WARN_ON with more debug info) to unblock test system > before the fix is ready? Well, as the VMX maintainer I think the proposal of whether to revert or wait should really come from you. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
