Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] nx bit shouldn't get set when disabled

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 Jun 2005, at 20:47, Scott Parish wrote:

> > Why does x86_64 get pte_mfn, but not pae i386? I think pci-dma.c
> > should probably be shared between i386 and x86/64.
> Last time i checked, the linux side of i386 pae wasn't merged into bk,
> so i have nothing to test such a patch against. I'll plan on getting a
> pae setup going again and sending a patch to gerd.
The functions that are changed aren't pae-specific, and they are 
already in the xen/i386 tree. They can be patched in anticipation of 
pae, even though they can only be properly tested non-pae for the time 
being. I'm not inclined to take patches for xen/x86_64/pci-dma.c 
anyway: I think we can patch the xen/i386 one and share it with 
xen/x86_64. Otherwise we're going to get unnecessary divergence between 
what really ought to be two identical files. (I already did this for 
arch/xen/i386/kernel/time.c, for example.)
> > Why the extra mask ops with __supported_pte_mask? Native x86/64 builds
> > obviously don't need them...
> Definitions such as __PAGE_KERNEL set NX, but as Jun pointed out, those
> should only be set when NX mode is enabled.
So the extra masking isn't required?

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel