t in rejecting adding
> memory areas resulting in a memory size above the allowed limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar
Reviewed-by: William Kucharski
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
* it will remove that restriction again.
> + */
> + max_mem_size = xen_e820_table.entries[i].addr +
> +xen_e820_table.entries[i].size;
> +#endif
> }
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 1:06 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index b9a667d36c55..7fc2a87110a3 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -96,10 +96,16 @@ void mem_hotplug_done(void)
> cpus_read_unlock();
> }
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2019, at 5:09 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
>
> AFAICS this only applies to switch statements (because they jump to a
> case and don't execute stuff at the start of the block), not blocks
> after if/while/... .
It bothers me that we are going out of our way to deprecate valid C constructs
> On Nov 21, 2018, at 5:35 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> It's probably better to be more explicit and answer Randy's question:
>
> * If we fail to insert any page into the vma, the function will return
> * immediately leaving any previously-inserted pages present. Callers
> * from the mmap ha
If you are adding PageOffline(page) to the condition list of the already
existing if in
saveable_highmem_page(), why explicitly add it as a separate statement in
saveable_page()?
It would seem more consistent to make the second check:
- if (swsusp_page_is_forbidden(page) || swsusp_page_is
Could you add a line to the description explicitly stating that a failure
to insert any page in the range will fail the entire routine, something
like:
> * This allows drivers to insert range of kernel pages they've allocated
> * into a user vma. This is a generic function which drivers can use
>
