Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "ldts".
Did you mean:
ldt
2006 Feb 15
3
difference between PGT_gdt_page and PGT_ldt_page
Is there any particular reason why there cannot just be a PGT_descr_page, combining the two currently existing types?
Even if it''s only a page, I''d want to avoid wasting memory for nothing, and i386''s default_ldt could easily move into
the same page cpu_gdt_table lives in. Alternatively one could also use empty_zero_page here. Or do it like on x86-64,
where the symbol
2007 Apr 18
1
[PATCH 2/12] ldt-accessors
...mode)
{
struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
- __u32 entry_1, entry_2, *lp;
+ __u32 entry_1, entry_2;
int error;
struct user_desc ldt_info;
@@ -205,8 +205,6 @@
goto out_unlock;
}
- lp = (__u32 *) ((ldt_info.entry_number << 3) + (char *) mm->context.ldt);
-
/* Allow LDTs to be cleared by the user. */
if (ldt_info.base_addr == 0 && ldt_info.limit == 0) {
if (oldmode || LDT_empty(&ldt_info)) {
@@ -223,8 +221,7 @@
/* Install the new entry ... */
install:
- *lp = entry_1;
- *(lp+1) = entry_2;
+ write_ldt_entry(mm->context.ldt, ldt_info.entr...
2007 Apr 18
1
[PATCH 2/12] ldt-accessors
...mode)
{
struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
- __u32 entry_1, entry_2, *lp;
+ __u32 entry_1, entry_2;
int error;
struct user_desc ldt_info;
@@ -205,8 +205,6 @@
goto out_unlock;
}
- lp = (__u32 *) ((ldt_info.entry_number << 3) + (char *) mm->context.ldt);
-
/* Allow LDTs to be cleared by the user. */
if (ldt_info.base_addr == 0 && ldt_info.limit == 0) {
if (oldmode || LDT_empty(&ldt_info)) {
@@ -223,8 +221,7 @@
/* Install the new entry ... */
install:
- *lp = entry_1;
- *(lp+1) = entry_2;
+ write_ldt_entry(mm->context.ldt, ldt_info.entr...
2007 Apr 18
2
[PATCH 3/6] i386 virtualization - Make ldt a desc struct
* zach@vmware.com (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
> Make the LDT a desc_struct pointer, since this is what it actually is.
I like that plan.
> There is code which relies on the fact that LDTs are allocated in page
> chunks, and it is both cleaner and more convenient to keep the rather
> poorly named "size" variable from the LDT in terms of LDT pages.
I noticed it's replaced by context.ldt and context.ldt_pages, which
appear to be decoupling the overloaded use from b...
2007 Apr 18
2
[PATCH 3/6] i386 virtualization - Make ldt a desc struct
* zach@vmware.com (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
> Make the LDT a desc_struct pointer, since this is what it actually is.
I like that plan.
> There is code which relies on the fact that LDTs are allocated in page
> chunks, and it is both cleaner and more convenient to keep the rather
> poorly named "size" variable from the LDT in terms of LDT pages.
I noticed it's replaced by context.ldt and context.ldt_pages, which
appear to be decoupling the overloaded use from b...
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
Chris Wright wrote:
>* Zachary Amsden (zach@vmware.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Does Xen assume page aligned descriptor tables? I assume from this
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>patch and snippets I have gathered from others, that is a yes, and other
>>things here imply that DT pages are not shadowed. If so, Xen itself
>>must have live segments
2007 Dec 06
51
[PATCH 0/19] desc_struct integration
Hi,
this is a series of patches that unify the struct desc_struct and friends
across x86_64 and i386. As usual, it provides paravirt capabilities as a
side-effect for x86_64.
I consider the main goal, namely, of unifying the desc_struct, an ongoing
effort, being this the beginning. A lot of old code has to be touched to
accomplish that.
I don't consider this patch ready for inclusion.
2007 Dec 06
51
[PATCH 0/19] desc_struct integration
Hi,
this is a series of patches that unify the struct desc_struct and friends
across x86_64 and i386. As usual, it provides paravirt capabilities as a
side-effect for x86_64.
I consider the main goal, namely, of unifying the desc_struct, an ongoing
effort, being this the beginning. A lot of old code has to be touched to
accomplish that.
I don't consider this patch ready for inclusion.