Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: allocate ring buffer earlier

2014-12-08 Thread Julien Grall
On 08/12/14 08:52, Jan Beulich wrote: On 06.12.14 at 01:05, wrote: >> On 05/12/2014 16:55, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > I didn't change ARM, as I wasn't sure how far ahead this call could be >>> pulled. >> >> AFAIU, the new function only requires that the page table are setup >> (because of the

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: allocate ring buffer earlier

2014-12-08 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 05.12.14 at 18:22, wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:55:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: >> @@ -763,17 +762,28 @@ void __init console_init_postirq(void) >> } >> opt_conring_size = PAGE_SIZE << order; >> >> -spin_lock_irq(&console_lock); >> +spin_lock_irqsave(&console_lock,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: allocate ring buffer earlier

2014-12-08 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 06.12.14 at 01:05, wrote: > On 05/12/2014 16:55, Jan Beulich wrote: > > I didn't change ARM, as I wasn't sure how far ahead this call could be >> pulled. > > AFAIU, the new function only requires that the page table are setup > (because of the alloc_xenheap_pages). > > So console_init_

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: allocate ring buffer earlier

2014-12-07 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 06:22:57PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:55:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > > ... when "conring_size=" was specified on the command line. We can't > > really do this as early as we would want to when the option was not > > specified, as the default

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: allocate ring buffer earlier

2014-12-05 Thread Julien Grall
Hi Jan, On 05/12/2014 16:55, Jan Beulich wrote: > I didn't change ARM, as I wasn't sure how far ahead this call could be pulled. AFAIU, the new function only requires that the page table are setup (because of the alloc_xenheap_pages). So console_init_mem could be called right after console

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] console: allocate ring buffer earlier

2014-12-05 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:55:24PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > ... when "conring_size=" was specified on the command line. We can't > really do this as early as we would want to when the option was not > specified, as the default depends on knowing the system CPU count. Yet > the parsing of the ACP