Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 2/2] add a new p2m type - p2m_mmio_write_dm

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

At 10:00 +0800 on 05 Dec (1417770044), Yu, Zhang wrote:
> >> @@ -5978,7 +5982,8 @@ long do_hvm_op(unsigned long op, 
> >> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
> >>                   goto param_fail4;
> >>               }
> >>               if ( !p2m_is_ram(t) &&
> >> -                 (!p2m_is_hole(t) || a.hvmmem_type != HVMMEM_mmio_dm) )
> >> +                 (!p2m_is_hole(t) || a.hvmmem_type != HVMMEM_mmio_dm) &&
> >> +                 t != p2m_mmio_write_dm )
> >
> > I think that Jan already brough this up, and maybe I missed your
> > answer: this realaxation looks wrong to me. I would have thought that
> > transition between p2m_mmio_write_dm and p2m_ram_rw/p2m_ram_logdirty
> > would be the only ones you would want to allow.
> 
> Ha. Sorry, my negligence, and thanks for pointing out. :)
> The transition we use now is only between p2m_mmio_write_dm and 
> p2m_ram_rw. So how about this:
> 
>      if ( !p2m_is_ram(t) &&
>           (!p2m_is_hole(t) || a.hvmmem_type != HVMMEM_mmio_dm) &&
>           (t != p2m_mmio_write_dm || a.hvmmem_type != HVMMEM_ram_rw) )

Yes, I think that's right. 

Cheers,

Tim.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel