On 23/03/17 17:54, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 23.03.17 at 17:44, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >> On 23/03/17 16:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 23.03.17 at 07:25, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S >>>> @@ -335,3 +335,5 @@ ASSERT(IS_ALIGNED(__bss_end, 8), "__bss_end >>>> misaligned") >>>> >>>> ASSERT((trampoline_end - trampoline_start) < TRAMPOLINE_SPACE - >>>> MBI_SPACE_MIN, >>>> "not enough room for trampoline and mbi data") >>>> +ASSERT((trampoline_boot_start - wakeup_stack_start) >= WAKEUP_STACK_MIN, >>>> + "wakeup stack too small") >>> >>> ... use wakeup_stack here too? >> >> It would work, yes. With my pending patch for releasing the memory of >> the boot-only trampoline code this would look a little bit strange: >> I'd have to free the memory named "wakeup_stack" and the label >> "trampoline_boot_start" would be unused. > > Well, the implication from my reply was that trampoline_boot_start > likely can be dropped. Freeing from wakeup_stack onwards seems > quite reasonable, since the stack is the last thing you want to keep.
Okay, lets do it this way. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
