From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 07/19] pvh: Disable unneeded features of
	HVM containers
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:56:20 +0000
Message-ID: <52824194.2020305@eu.citrix.com>
References: <1384181841-22739-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<1384181841-22739-8-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<5282408B02000078001025DC@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>) id 1VgFOD-0003gh-SR
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:56:26 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5282408B02000078001025DC@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/12/2013 01:51 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 11.11.13 at 15:57, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -1414,6 +1442,7 @@ int hvm_hap_nested_page_fault(paddr_t gpa,
>>       /* For the benefit of 32-bit WinXP (& older Windows) on AMD CPUs,
>>        * a fast path for LAPIC accesses, skipping the p2m lookup. */
>>       if ( !nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode(v)
>> +         && is_hvm_vcpu(v)
>
> This change looks unnecessary - nestedhvm_vcpu_enter_guestmode()
> (the only way by which nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode() could return
> other than zero) must obviously never be used on a PVH guest.

You've got the polarity of that check wrong -- PVH guests are never in 
guest mode, therefore !nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode() is always true.

  -George