[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 (resend) 12/27] x86/mapcache: Initialise the mapcache for the idle domain
On 20/02/2024 10:51, Jan Beulich wrote: On 16.01.2024 20:25, Elias El Yandouzi wrote:--- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c @@ -750,9 +750,16 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d,spin_lock_init(&d->arch.e820_lock); + if ( (rc = mapcache_domain_init(d)) != 0)+ { + free_perdomain_mappings(d); + return rc; + } + /* Minimal initialisation for the idle domain. */ if ( unlikely(is_idle_domain(d)) ) { + struct page_info *pg = d->arch.perdomain_l3_pg; static const struct arch_csw idle_csw = { .from = paravirt_ctxt_switch_from, .to = paravirt_ctxt_switch_to, @@ -763,6 +770,9 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d,d->arch.cpu_policy = ZERO_BLOCK_PTR; /* Catch stray misuses. */ + idle_pg_table[l4_table_offset(PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START)] =+ l4e_from_page(pg, __PAGE_HYPERVISOR_RW); + return 0; }Why not add another call to mapcache_domain_init() right here, allowing a more specific panic() to be invoked in case of failure (compared to the BUG_ON() upon failure of creation of the idle domain as a whole)? Then the other mapcache_domain_init() call doesn't need moving a 2nd time in close succession. To be honest, I don't really like the idea of having twice the same call just for the benefit of having a panic() call in case of failure for the idle domain. If you don't mind, I'd rather keep just a single call to mapcache_domain_init() as it is now. Elias
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |