From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Kagstrom Subject: Re: [PATCH] paging_enabled and non-HVM guests Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:35:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87ac9p6842.wl%simon.kagstrom@bth.se> References: <87wtcv5t9e.wl%simon.kagstrom@bth.se> <1147204426.19485.67.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <87r7325s83.wl%simon.kagstrom@bth.se> <1147272714.27510.8.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <1147275754.27510.14.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1147275754.27510.14.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.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: Hollis Blanchard Cc: xen-devel list List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At Wed, 10 May 2006 10:42:34 -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > To elaborate on my previous mail, it's not just CR0/paging at fault. For > example, this use of page_array: > ... > l3p = l4[l4_table_offset(va)] >> PAGE_SHIFT; > l3p = page_array[l3p]; > ... > in map_domain_va_64() is obviously incorrect for paravirtualized > domains. > > Also, I noticed there's another place that already tests VGCF_HVM_GUEST > before paging_enabled(), which I guess is where you got the idea for > your patch. Actually, I found that afterwards :-). > Simon, would you care to submit the more complete patch? I'll see what I can do in the next few days! // Simon