From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Scott Parish" Subject: Re: [patch] nx bit shouldn't get set when disabled Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:39:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20050608223940.GI14747@us.ibm.com> References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173042FECD1@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com> <20050608180615.GF14747@us.ibm.com> <0a4bf36fcc19f04c377301f2c4cdff33@cl.cam.ac.uk> <20050608194745.GG3182@us.ibm.com> <315458c73bbaddd921a5dbd545b0f088@cl.cam.ac.uk> <20050608204727.GH3182@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, Scott Parish List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Sorry, i'll be more careful in the future. sRp On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:31:36PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > > You sent this only to me (not Jun or the list). :-) > > On 8 Jun 2005, at 21:47, Scott Parish wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:23:47PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > >>I'm not inclined to take patches for xen/x86_64/pci-dma.c > >>anyway: I think we can patch the xen/i386 one and share it with > >>xen/x86_64. > > > >I'll start looking into this. > > > >>So the extra masking isn't required? > > > >Not for any reason i know of. Jun? > > > >sRp > > > >-- > >Scott Parish > >Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com > > -- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com