[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] DOM0: Add Machine check support to dom0

["Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, it should be safe. I remember I thought this also, but forgot why I still 
use original patch.  I will try tomorrow once I got the platform to test.
BTW, how do you think of the mail at 
http://old.nabble.com/-RFC---PATCH--Dom0:-Don't-switch-back-to-user-space-stack-in-syscall-entry-td27353863.html
 ? Do you think we need the vIST implementation?

Thanks
Yunhong Jiang

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@xxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:24 AM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong
>Cc: Ke, Liping; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] DOM0: Add Machine check support to dom0
>
>On 01/28/2010 02:13 AM, Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
>> Jeremy, this patch is to add MCE support to dom0.
>>
>> As currently there is no branch for MCA (the original one is really so out 
>> of date), so
>this patch is against xen master.
>>
>> Another patch will sent out as RFC to cover the smal windows between syscall
>entry point and stack switch.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Yunhong Jiang
>>
>>   From 2fe838c3ab2d68d4019d72b2098da4c2ef97fcd8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>2001
>> From: Jiang, Yunhong<yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:48:54 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] Change the machine check point
>>
>> Enable MCE support in dom0, so that if a MCE happen and that MCE impact dom0,
>dom0 can receive a vMCE.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ke, Liping<liping.ke@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiang, Yunhong<yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c |    2 +-
>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>> index 7a62c2b..a8c1d34 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>> @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static int cvt_gate_to_trap(int vector, const gate_desc
>*val,
>>              return 0;
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
>>      } else if (addr == (unsigned long)machine_check) {
>> -            return 0;
>> +            addr = (unsigned long)machine_check;
>>
>
>I just had another look at this while going through my backlog.  This is
>just a no-op.  I assume we need the test because val->ist != 0 and so
>would provoke the check, but we needn't have any body in the if(), right?
>
>     J

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