On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 06:00 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > Reported-by: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk> > > > > > > Does this mean there was an actual problem resulting from this code > > > being there, or simply the observation that this code is all dead? > > > Clarifying one way or the other by half a sentence would be nice. > > > > It was more an observation that when you kexec Xen, it blindly writes > > into the BDA even when that wasn't set up properly by the tools. > > > > Arguably that may have been kexec setup problem more than a Xen problem, > > but after looking at this code, it is obviously that what Xen was doing > > definitely wasn't right to do unconditionally. It just so happens that > > it safe to unconditionally drop the logic, rather than to make it > > dependant on other system properties. > > > > I'm not sure how best to phrase this. > > Maybe "In practice issues with this were observed only with kexec"?
Not sure that's true either, is it? I found *lots* of issues when doing kexec, and I should resend that series of boot code cleanups — but this wasn't one of the ones I remember spotting :)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
