From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nadav Har'El" Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/31] nVMX: Implement VMLAUNCH and VMRESUME Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:26:23 +0300 Message-ID: <20110525132623.GE16418@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> References: <1305575004-nyh@il.ibm.com> <201105161953.p4GJr8Jo001858@rice.haifa.ibm.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C9BFA39F8@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "gleb@redhat.com" , "avi@redhat.com" To: "Tian, Kevin" Return-path: Received: from mailgw12.technion.ac.il ([132.68.225.12]:39330 "EHLO mailgw12.technion.ac.il" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757912Ab1EYN00 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C9BFA39F8@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 25, 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote about "RE: [PATCH 18/31] nVMX: Implement VMLAUNCH and VMRESUME": > > + if (!saved_vmcs02) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > we shouldn't return error after the guest mode is updated. Or else move > enter_guest_mode to a later place... I moved things around, but I don't think it matters anyway: If we return ENOMEM, the KVM ioctl fails, and the whole L1 guest dies - it doesn't matter at this point if we were in the middle of updating its state. -- Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, May 25 2011, 21 Iyyar 5771 nyh@math.technion.ac.il |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Quotation, n.: The act of repeating http://nadav.harel.org.il |erroneously the words of another.