linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if !xen_have_vector

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:40:26 +0000
From:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen pvhvm: do not remap pirqs onto evtchns if
 !xen_have_vector_callback

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:46PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
> 
> So the xen_have_vector_callback looks to be only set by
> 
> 1398         if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector))
> 1399                 xen_have_vector_callback = 1;
> 
> So could this be just done via a check for that instead?
> 

Sure, but I don't think it would be better: using
xen_have_vector_callback is more consistent and give us the flexibility
of allowing users to manually override it in the future.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/