On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 10:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 10.06.15 at 10:56, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 14:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> > >> > >> To help on certain platforms to run. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > > > To be effective (or at least consistent) on ARM, would we also want to > > change its efi_process_memory_map_bootinfo: > > if ( desc_ptr->Type == EfiConventionalMemory > > || desc_ptr->Type == EfiBootServicesCode > > || desc_ptr->Type == EfiBootServicesData ) > > to include a check on map_bs? > > I'm not convinced, but I also don't know the history of why boot > services areas are being included here in the first place - Roy? > I.e. if the checks weren't there already, I'd agree that an addition > similar to the other ones would be needed here, but with the x86 > side getting relaxed I don't see why you would want to tighten the > ARM side at the same time.
I read it backwards and thought this was currently excluding them like x86 does. Am I correct that the stricter x86 behaviour is per the spec, and this new option is a workaround for non-compliant systems? If so unless Roy knows of a reason why these should be mapped on ARM be default (i.e. the ARM spec differs) I'd be inclined to suggesting the default be stricter on ARM too for consistency. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
