>>> On 15.05.15 at 10:00, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote: > 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.
And I didn't ask you to drop it. All I asked it to amend it with another BUG_ON() checking what the one above won't cover anymore. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
