On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:56:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.09.2020 12:45, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:20:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
> >> @@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ bool efi_enabled(unsigned int fea
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:20:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Address at least the primary reason why 52bba67f8b87 ("efi/boot: Don't
> free ebmalloc area at all") was put in place: Make xen_in_range() aware
> of the freed range. This is in particular relevant for EFI-enabled
> builds not actually
On 17.09.2020 13:17, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:56:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.09.2020 12:45, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:20:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
@@ -5
On 17.09.2020 12:45, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:20:54PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
>> @@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ bool efi_enabled(unsigned int feature)
>>
>> void __init efi_init_memory(void) { }
>>
>> +bool efi_
Address at least the primary reason why 52bba67f8b87 ("efi/boot: Don't
free ebmalloc area at all") was put in place: Make xen_in_range() aware
of the freed range. This is in particular relevant for EFI-enabled
builds not actually running on EFI, as the entire range will be unused
in this case.
Sig
