On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:57:33AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 11:39 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:34:49AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:18 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > > On 06/01/2015 06:19 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 11:39 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:34:49AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:18 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > On 06/01/2015 06:19 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > Make the setup process similar to PV counterpart. That is, to allocate
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:34:49AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:18 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 06/01/2015 06:19 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > Make the setup process similar to PV counterpart. That is, to allocate a
> > > P2M array that covers the whole memory range and
On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:18 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 06:19 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > Make the setup process similar to PV counterpart. That is, to allocate a
> > P2M array that covers the whole memory range and start from there. This
> > is clearer than using an array with no hole
On 06/01/2015 06:19 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
Make the setup process similar to PV counterpart. That is, to allocate a
P2M array that covers the whole memory range and start from there. This
is clearer than using an array with no holes in it.
Also the dummy layout should take MMIO hole into considerati
Make the setup process similar to PV counterpart. That is, to allocate a
P2M array that covers the whole memory range and start from there. This
is clearer than using an array with no holes in it.
Also the dummy layout should take MMIO hole into consideration. We might
end up having two vmemranges
