From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/8]: PVH: smp changes
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:23:23 -0700
Message-ID: <20120821172323.38aec925@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <20120815180449.50410028@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<1345196531.30865.139.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1345196531.30865.139.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:42:11 +0100
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:

> > @@ -339,7 +343,20 @@ cpu_initialize_context(unsigned int cpu,
> > struct task_struct *idle) (unsigned long)xen_hypervisor_callback;
> >  		ctxt->failsafe_callback_eip = 
> >  					(unsigned
> > long)xen_failsafe_callback; -
> > +	} else {
> > +		ctxt->user_regs.ds = __KERNEL_DS;
> > +		ctxt->user_regs.es = 0;
> > +		ctxt->user_regs.gs = 0;
> 
> Not __KERNEL_DS for es too?

64bit, es ignored, right?

> Not sure about gs -- shouldn't that point to some per-cpu segment or
> something? Maybe that happens somewhere else? (in which case a
> comment?)

Gets set later. comment good idea.

> > +
> > +		ctxt->gdt_frames[0] = (unsigned long)gdt;
> > +		ctxt->gdt_ents = (unsigned long)(GDT_SIZE - 1);
> > +
> > +		/* Note: PVH is not supported on x86_32. */
> > +#ifdef __x86_64__
> 
> ITYM CONFIG_X86_64?

Yup.