[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]
Is this patch acceptable? If yes, I'll continue to work out the other splitted patch. Xiaofeng Ling <mailto:xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd like to split the patch into small ones, so that it can be > clearer. Attach is the patch of adding support copy_to/from_guest. > > Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Ling <xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx> > > arch/x86/x86_32/usercopy.c | 99 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/x86/x86_64/usercopy.c | 15 +++++ > include/asm-x86/x86_32/uaccess.h | 5 + > include/asm-x86/x86_64/uaccess.h | 5 + > 4 files changed, 124 insertions(+) > > > Ling, Xiaofeng wrote: >> >> Keir Fraser <mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 3 Jun 2005, at 03:40, Xiaofeng Ling wrote: >>> >>> >>>> It's now all use shadow_mode_external, and use a permit bitmap for >>>> hypercall from vmx domain. Do you think it's now acceptable? >>>> It's against 1657. >>> guest >>> Still messy imo. When I said to split the path by >>> shadow_mode_externel, I meant you should do it within the uaccess >>> macros/functions; not in their callers. guest >> >> I've already done that for copy_from/to_user, but for >> __copy_from/to_user I can not do that, because not all the caller >> shall call copy_from/to_guest _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |