Re: [PATCH 18/24] PVH xen: Checks, asserts, and limitations for PVH

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/24] PVH xen: Checks, asserts, and limitations for PVH
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:49:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E80E9C02000078000E6075@nat28.tlf.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1374114788-27652-19-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>

>>> On 18.07.13 at 04:33, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
> @@ -2710,6 +2710,8 @@ static void emulate_gate_op(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>      unsigned long off, eip, opnd_off, base, limit;
>      int jump;
>  
> +    ASSERT(!is_pvh_vcpu(v));
> +
>      /* Check whether this fault is due to the use of a call gate. */
>      if ( !read_gate_descriptor(regs->error_code, v, &sel, &off, &ar) ||
>           (((ar >> 13) & 3) < (regs->cs & 3)) ||
> @@ -3326,6 +3328,8 @@ void do_device_not_available(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>  
>      BUG_ON(!guest_mode(regs));
>  
> +    ASSERT(!is_pvh_vcpu(curr));
> +
>      vcpu_restore_fpu_lazy(curr);
>  
>      if ( curr->arch.pv_vcpu.ctrlreg[0] & X86_CR0_TS )

I'm pretty sure I said this before: These assertions are bogus:
Either drop them, or make them

    ASSERT(is_pv_vcpu(...));

Jan