>>> On 04.06.19 at 00:02, wrote:
> On 6/3/19 10:56 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 May 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.05.19 at 00:47, wrote:
--- a/xen/common/pdx.c
+++ b/xen/common/pdx.c
@@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ static u64 __init fill_mask(u64 mask)
return ma
Hi Stefano,
On 6/3/19 10:56 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.05.19 at 00:47, wrote:
--- a/xen/common/pdx.c
+++ b/xen/common/pdx.c
@@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ static u64 __init fill_mask(u64 mask)
return mask;
}
+/*
+ * We always map the first 1<
P
On Thu, 9 May 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.05.19 at 00:47, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/pdx.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/pdx.c
> > @@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ static u64 __init fill_mask(u64 mask)
> > return mask;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * We always map the first 1< > + * are left uncompressed.
>
Hi Stefano,
On 5/8/19 11:47 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
The mask calculation in pdx_init_mask is wrong when the first bank
starts at address 0x0. The reason is that pdx_init_mask will do '0 - 1'
causing an underflow. As a result, the mask becomes 0x
which is the biggest possibl
>>> On 09.05.19 at 00:47, wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/pdx.c
> +++ b/xen/common/pdx.c
> @@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ static u64 __init fill_mask(u64 mask)
> return mask;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * We always map the first 1< + * are left uncompressed.
> + */
> u64 __init pdx_init_mask(u64 base_addr)
> {
> -
The mask calculation in pdx_init_mask is wrong when the first bank
starts at address 0x0. The reason is that pdx_init_mask will do '0 - 1'
causing an underflow. As a result, the mask becomes 0x
which is the biggest possible mask and ends up causing a significant
memory waste in the
