| To: | Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andreslc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] Question on save/restore mfn canonicalization |
| From: | Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 2007年9月29日 07:46:30 +0100 |
| Cc: | xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | 2007年9月28日 23:42:29 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <46FD4E05.60600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcgCZHc0tabKPG5XEdyKkQAWy6hiGQ== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] Question on save/restore mfn canonicalization |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 |
Yeah, it's just the way it got written long ago. It isn't as nice as it could be, but it can't be changed now. -- Keir On 28/9/07 19:55, "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" <andreslc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, when you're in school you don't have to care about breaking ABI's :) > So, the answer is then "no particular reason"? > Andres > John Levon wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:25:28PM -0400, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote: >> >> >>> While exploring the paravirt save/restore code path, I noted a >>> (seemingly) lack of consistency between where/who canonicalizes >>> something and who un-canonicalizes. For example, the guest kernel >>> canonicalizes the store and console mfn's in pre_suspend, but >>> xc_domain_restore uncanonicalizes them before scheduling back the >>> restored guest. >>> The question is if there is a mandatory reason for this, or is just the >>> way the code was written. Can I, e.g, fill the >>> pfn_to_mfn_frame_list(_list) entries from "outside" and remove that code >>> from post_suspend, or will something break? >>> >> >> You'll break the ABI. I don't know of a reason why it's so inconsistent. >> >> regards >> john >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.1.1 RC2 testing report. -- 1 Blocked issue. , You, Yongkang |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.1.1 RC2 testing report. -- 1 Blocked issue. , Keir Fraser |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] Question on save/restore mfn canonicalization , Andres Lagar-Cavilla |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] permit_access functionality , Jayant Mangalampalli |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |