Before you add memory_map.nr_map, you should be able to iterate
from 0 to (not inclusive) nr. At least as far as I recall the original
patch.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you want.
Before we add memory_map.nr_map, e820[0, nr) don't include low/high
memory, right?
Why? memory_map is
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.07.15 at 17:54, wrote:
>>> > +for ( i = nr-1; i > memory_map.nr_map; i-- )
>>>
>>> Before you add memory_map.nr_map, you should be able to iterate
>>> from 0 to (not inclusive) nr. At least as far as I recall the original
>>> patc
On 2015/7/18 0:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.07.15 at 17:54, wrote:
+for ( i = nr-1; i > memory_map.nr_map; i-- )
Before you add memory_map.nr_map, you should be able to iterate
from 0 to (not inclusive) nr. At least as far as I recall the original
patch.
Sorry, I really don't understa
>>> On 17.07.15 at 17:54, wrote:
>> > +for ( i = nr-1; i > memory_map.nr_map; i-- )
>>
>> Before you add memory_map.nr_map, you should be able to iterate
>> from 0 to (not inclusive) nr. At least as far as I recall the original
>> patch.
>>
>
> Sorry, I really don't understand what you want.
+for ( i = nr-1; i > memory_map.nr_map; i-- )
Before you add memory_map.nr_map, you should be able to iterate
from 0 to (not inclusive) nr. At least as far as I recall the original
patch.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you want.
Before we add memory_map.nr_map, e820[0, nr) don't i
>>> On 17.07.15 at 17:22, wrote:
> Do you mean I should check low/high mem before we add the hypervisor
> supplied entries
Yes.
> like this?
Not exactly:
> +for ( i = nr-1; i > memory_map.nr_map; i-- )
Before you add memory_map.nr_map, you should be able to iterate
from 0 to (not inclusi
On 2015/7/17 18:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.07.15 at 11:09, wrote:
And then of course there's the question of whether "nr" is really
the right upper loop bound here: Just prior to this you added
the hypervisor supplied entries - why would you need to iterate
over them here? I.e. I'd see this b
>>> On 17.07.15 at 11:27, wrote:
>> Remind me again please - what prevents the highmem region from
>> colliding with hypervisor supplied entries?
>>
>> Also, what if the resulting region exceeds the addressable range
>> (guest's view of CPUID[8008].EAX[0:7])?
>
> Any idea to this? I think th
>>> On 17.07.15 at 11:09, wrote:
>> And then of course there's the question of whether "nr" is really
>> the right upper loop bound here: Just prior to this you added
>> the hypervisor supplied entries - why would you need to iterate
>> over them here? I.e. I'd see this better be moved ahead of th
Remind me again please - what prevents the highmem region from
colliding with hypervisor supplied entries?
Also, what if the resulting region exceeds the addressable range
(guest's view of CPUID[8008].EAX[0:7])?
Any idea to this? I think this issue also exists previously.
Thanks
Tiejun
__
The way it's written I take it that you assume there to be exactly
one region that the adjustment needs to be done for. Iirc this is
correct with the current model, but why would you continue the
loop then afterwards? Placing a "break" in the if()'s body would
document the fact that only one such
>>> On 17.07.15 at 02:45, wrote:
> Now use the hypervisor-supplied memory map to build our final e820 table:
> * Add regions for BIOS ranges and other special mappings not in the
> hypervisor map
> * Add in the hypervisor regions
... hypervisor supplied regions?
> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloade
Now use the hypervisor-supplied memory map to build our final e820 table:
* Add regions for BIOS ranges and other special mappings not in the
hypervisor map
* Add in the hypervisor regions
* Adjust the lowmem and highmem regions if we've had to relocate
memory (adding a highmem region if necess
13 matches
Mail list logo
