[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: fix interaction between internal and extern emulation
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: 28 November 2017 12:04 > To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper > <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen- > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/HVM: fix interaction between internal and extern > emulation > > >>> On 28.11.17 at 12:58, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf > >> Of Paul Durrant > >> Sent: 28 November 2017 11:31 > >> To: 'Jan Beulich' <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Julien Grall > >> <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/HVM: fix interaction between > internal > >> and extern emulation > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > >> > Sent: 28 November 2017 11:26 > >> > To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper > >> > <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen- > >> > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/HVM: fix interaction between internal and > extern > >> > emulation > >> > > >> > >>> On 28.11.17 at 12:06, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > Yes, it appears that mmio_retry is only set when the underlying > >> emulation > >> > > returned X86EMUL_OKAY but not all reps were completed. If the > >> > underlying > >> > > emulation did not return X86EMUL_RETRY then I can't figure out why > >> > > vio->io_completion should need to be set to anything other than > >> > > HVMIO_no_completion since any other return value indicates there > >> should > >> > be > >> > > nothing pending. > >> > > >> > So am I getting it right that you're suggesting to remove the > >> > mmio_retry part of the condition in hvm_emulate_one_insn()? > >> > That looks like it might work (I was previously only considering > >> > to get rid of mmio_retry altogether, and that didn't look like a > >> > viable route). > >> > >> Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. I really can't see why it is needed. It > > could > >> have been a mistake in my original patches or a semantic change in a > >> subsequent patch, but it certainly looks wrong in current context. > >> Andrew has just sent me his xtf repro so I'll give the change a go with > > that. > > > > Yes, this patch fixed the problem for me. I'll do some more tests to check > > for collateral damage now... If it's all good, do you want me to submit it > > or > > do you want to send it as a v2 of your patch? > > It's yours, so please submit it (perhaps nevertheless as v2). Feel > free to add my R-b right away if no other change turns out > necessary. Ok. Will do. Thanks, Paul > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |