On 2015/4/20 22:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.04.15 at 11:22, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
--- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
+++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/e820.c
@@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
unsigned int lowmem_reserved_base,
unsigned int bios_image_base)
{
- unsigned int nr = 0;
+ unsigned int nr = 0, i, j;
+ struct e820entry tmp;
The declaration of "tmp" belongs in the most narrow scope you need
it in.
Right.
@@ -119,10 +120,6 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
/* Low RAM goes here. Reserve space for special pages. */
BUG_ON((hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) < (2u << 20));
- e820[nr].addr = 0x100000;
- e820[nr].size = (hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) - e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
- nr++;
I think the above comment needs adjustment with all this code
removed. I also wonder how meaningful the BUG_ON() is with
->low_mem_pgend no longer used for E820 table construction.
Perhaps this needs another BUG_ON() validating that the field
matches some value from memory_map.map[]?
But I think hvm_info->low_mem_pgend is still correct, right? And
additionally, there's no any obvious flag to indicate which
memory_map.map[x] is that last low memory map. Even we may separate the
low memory to construct memory_map.map[]...
@@ -159,16 +156,37 @@ int build_e820_table(struct e820entry *e820,
nr++;
}
-
- if ( hvm_info->high_mem_pgend )
+ /* Construct the remaining according memory_map[]. */
+ for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map; i++ )
{
- e820[nr].addr = ((uint64_t)1 << 32);
- e820[nr].size =
- ((uint64_t)hvm_info->high_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) - e820[nr].addr;
- e820[nr].type = E820_RAM;
+ e820[nr].addr = memory_map.map[i].addr;
+ e820[nr].size = memory_map.map[i].size;
+ e820[nr].type = memory_map.map[i].type;
Afaict you could use structure assignment here to make this
more readable.
Sorry, are you saying this?
memcpy(&e820[nr], &memory_map.map[i], sizeof(struct e820entry));
nr++;
}
+ /* May need to reorder all e820 entries. */
+ for ( j = 0; j < nr-1; j++ )
+ {
+ for ( i = j+1; i < nr; i++ )
+ {
+ if ( e820[j].addr > e820[i].addr )
+ {
+ tmp.addr = e820[j].addr;
+ tmp.size = e820[j].size;
+ tmp.type = e820[j].type;
+
+ e820[j].addr = e820[i].addr;
+ e820[j].size = e820[i].size;
+ e820[j].type = e820[i].type;
+
+ e820[i].addr = tmp.addr;
+ e820[i].size = tmp.size;
+ e820[i].type = tmp.type;
Please again use structure assignments to make this more readable.
And here,
for ( j = 0; j < nr-1; j++ )
{
for ( i = j+1; i < nr; i++ )
{
if ( e820[j].addr > e820[i].addr )
{
struct e820entry tmp;
memcpy(&tmp, &e820[j], sizeof(struct e820entry));
memcpy(&e820[j], &e820[i], sizeof(struct e820entry));
memcpy(&e820[i], &tmp, sizeof(struct e820entry));
}
}
}
If I'm wrong please correct me.
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
