[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140409152706.GF5860@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:27:06 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: konrad@...nel.org, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keir@....org
Subject: Re: [XEN PATCH 1/2] hvm: Support more than 32 VCPUS when migrating.
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:06:12AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.04.14 at 19:25, <konrad@...nel.org> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > @@ -3470,6 +3470,9 @@ static long hvm_vcpu_op(
> > case VCPUOP_stop_singleshot_timer:
> > case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info:
> > case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_time_memory_area:
> > + case VCPUOP_down:
> > + case VCPUOP_up:
> > + case VCPUOP_is_up:
>
> This, if I checked it properly, leaves only VCPUOP_initialise,
> VCPUOP_send_nmi, and VCPUOP_get_physid disallowed for HVM.
> None of which look inherently bad to be used by HVM (but
> VCPUOP_initialise certainly would need closer checking), so I
> wonder whether either the wrapper shouldn't be dropped altogether
> or at least be converted from a white list approach to a black list one.
I was being conservative here because I did not want to allow the
other ones without at least testing it.
Perhaps that can be done as a seperate patch and this just as
a bug-fix?
>
> Jan
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists