On 29.04.2020 15:30, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/04/2020 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.04.2020 15:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2020 15:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.04.2020 17:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c
>>>>> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 1;
>>>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = 1;
>>>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = 1;
>>>>>
>>>>> for_each_vcpu( d, v )
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> undo_and_fail:
>>>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>>> for_each_vcpu( d, v )
>>>>> {
>>>>> free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
>>>>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain *d)
>>>>> d->arch.ctxt_switch = &pv_csw;
>>>>>
>>>>> /* 64-bit PV guest by default. */
>>>>> - d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>>> + d->arch.pv.is_32bit = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo = 0;
>>>> Switch to true/false while you're touching these?
>>> Yes, but I'm tempted to delete these lines in the final hunk. Its
>>> writing zeros into a zeroed structures.
>> Oh, yes, agreed.
>
> Can I take this as an ack then?
Sorry, didn't realize I didn't give one yet with the adjustments
made:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Jan
