On 30/08/18 13:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 30.08.18 at 13:18, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 30/08/18 12:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> @@ -2512,9 +2512,10 @@ void hvm_emulate_init_per_insn( >>> hvm_access_insn_fetch, >>> &hvmemul_ctxt->seg_reg[x86_seg_cs], >>> &addr) && >>> - hvm_fetch_from_guest_linear(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf, addr, >>> - sizeof(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf), >>> - pfec, NULL) == HVMTRANS_okay) ? >>> + hvm_copy_from_guest_linear(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf, addr, >>> + sizeof(hvmemul_ctxt->insn_buf), >>> + pfec | PFEC_insn_fetch, NULL, >>> + NULL) == HVMTRANS_okay) ? >> Does this even compile? You seem to have an extra NULL here and several >> later places. > It does - with "x86/HVM: implement memory read caching" also > applied. IOW - I'm sorry, insufficient re-ordering work done > when moving these two ahead.
Does it? This patch has a mix of callers with 4 and 5 parameters, which is why I noticed it in the first place. With it fixed up to compile, and preferably with the other adjustment included, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
