On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 01:22:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.07.16 at 20:26, wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:33:12PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >> 1) We could use native EFI allocation functions (e.g. AllocatePool()
> >>or AllocatePages()) to get memory chunk. However, late
>>> On 05.07.16 at 20:26, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:33:12PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> 1) We could use native EFI allocation functions (e.g. AllocatePool()
>>or AllocatePages()) to get memory chunk. However, later (somewhere
>>in __start_xen()) we must copy its contents to saf
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 02:33:12PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
> allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and
> going down. Sadly this does not work when Xen is loaded using multiboot2
> protocol because start
>>> On 02.06.16 at 12:43, wrote:
> I have checked the code once again. On ARM we allocate memory using
> EfiLoaderData (not only for memory map) and later deliberately do not
> take over these regions. This means that memory map persists. However,
> this also means that we are not able to use a lo
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:11:32AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.06.16 at 21:53, wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:02:51AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 01.06.16 at 17:58, wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:37:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 25.05.16 at 21:
>>> On 01.06.16 at 21:53, wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:02:51AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 01.06.16 at 17:58, wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:37:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 25.05.16 at 21:48, wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beuli
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:02:51AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.06.16 at 17:58, wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:37:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 25.05.16 at 21:48, wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 15.04.16 at 14:
>>> On 01.06.16 at 17:58, wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:37:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 25.05.16 at 21:48, wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 15.04.16 at 14:33, wrote:
>> >> > There is a problem with place_string() which is use
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:37:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.05.16 at 21:48, wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 15.04.16 at 14:33, wrote:
[...]
> >> > Jan Beulich added 1b) Do away with efi_arch_allocate_mmap_buffer() and
> >> > use
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:37:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.05.16 at 21:48, wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 15.04.16 at 14:33, wrote:
> >> > There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
> >> > allocator. It g
>>> On 25.05.16 at 21:48, wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 15.04.16 at 14:33, wrote:
>> > There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
>> > allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and
>> > going down. Sadly
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 02:39:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 15.04.16 at 14:33, wrote:
> > There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
> > allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and
> > going down. Sadly this does not work when Xen is loaded u
>>> On 15.04.16 at 14:33, wrote:
> There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
> allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and
> going down. Sadly this does not work when Xen is loaded using multiboot2
> protocol because start lives on 1 MiB address. So,
There is a problem with place_string() which is used as early memory
allocator. It gets memory chunks starting from start symbol and
going down. Sadly this does not work when Xen is loaded using multiboot2
protocol because start lives on 1 MiB address. So, I tried to use
mem_lower address calculate
14 matches
Mail list logo