From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: arch_set_info_guest() producing inconsistent state on x86? Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:05:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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: Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 29/03/2011 13:01, "Keir Fraser" wrote: > On 29/03/2011 12:45, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >>> It's probably used by debuggers running in dom0? Also see >>> modify_returncode() in libxc/xc_resume.c -- so it's used on suspend resume >>> in the failure case. >>> >>> I doubt anything other than GPRs are ever modified after first >>> initialisation. >> >> So should we then perhaps make the function check the bits >> it doesn't really update match what is in place already? > > I suppose it would be nice. I can't say I care much one way or the other. By which I mean: if you want to make the change, and do it in a way that is clean and clear (maybe you can improve the function's readability while there, since it is a bit of a mess) then I'll apply it happily. I don't want to make the function even worse and more unmaintainable than it already is, however. -- Keir > -- Keir > >