On 2015/5/15 15:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.05.15 at 09:11, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
On 2015/5/15 14:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.05.15 at 08:39, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
On 2015/5/15 14:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.05.15 at 08:11, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
Even we may separate the
low memory to construct memory_map.map[]...
???
Sorry I just mean that the low memory is not represented with only one
memory_map.map[] in some cases.
That's correct.
So just lets keep that original BUG_ON()?
In your previous reply you seemed to agree that the BUG_ON() is
becoming meaningless. Why do you now suggest to keep it then?
Sorry just let me clear this.
We still need to check this,
(hvm_info->low_mem_pgend << PAGE_SHIFT) < (2u << 20)
Right? I agree the original is really less relevant as you said. But
what is that meaningful BUG_ON() as you expect?
I have no better ideas and just show one draft thought in previous email.
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
