On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 09:03:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 19.10.18 at 16:28, <[email protected]> wrote: > > @@ -548,10 +550,14 @@ ENTRY(ret_from_intr) > > GET_CURRENT(bx) > > testb $3, UREGS_cs(%rsp) > > jz restore_all_xen > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PV > > movq VCPU_domain(%rbx), %rax > > cmpb $0, DOMAIN_is_32bit_pv(%rax) > > je test_all_events > > jmp compat_test_all_events > > +#else > > + BUG > > +#endif > > Hmm, not sure here (and elsewhere): Another option is to > streamline execution by replacing the conditional branch with an > unconditional one in the !PV case. Andrew, do you have any > thoughts either way?
My original thought was to catch potential issues in Xen code which messes up with the permission level. Using unconditional jump is fine by me, too. But in that case I will seek to at least add an assertion for debug build. Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
