From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: Live migration with MMIO pages Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:43:28 +0000 Message-ID: <20071101164328.GD15566@york.uk.xensource.com> References: <1193848479.4094.47.camel@moonstone.uk.level5networks.com> <20071031173126.GA15566@york.uk.xensource.com> <1193915902.4327.9.camel@moonstone.uk.level5networks.com> <20071101113441.GB15566@york.uk.xensource.com> <1193934965.4327.39.camel@moonstone.uk.level5networks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1193934965.4327.39.camel@moonstone.uk.level5networks.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Kieran Mansley Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 16:36 +0000 on 01 Nov (1193934965), Kieran Mansley wrote: > One question in my mind is whether the tests of iomem_access_permitted() > in _sh_propogate() would be better replaced with the more general > shadow_mode_translate(). The former seemed less risky to me as You could do that. I think the correct test is shadow_mode_refcounts(); as Keir pointed out, guests whose refcounting isn't done by the shadow code will have had their pagetables validated bby the PV MMU interface. The test around the log-dirty code can just be on mfn_valid(). Cheers, Tim. -- Tim Deegan Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems. [Company #5334508: XenSource UK Ltd, reg'd c/o EC2Y 5EB, UK.]