>>> On 24.09.16 at 01:35, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 23/09/2016 22:47, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
>> index 38eb888..2085f35 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>> #include <xen/vmap.h>
>> #include <xen/libfdt/libfdt.h>
>> #include <xen/acpi.h>
>> +#include <xen/efi.h>
>> #include <asm/alternative.h>
>> #include <asm/page.h>
>> #include <asm/current.h>
>> @@ -66,6 +67,7 @@ integer_param("xenheap_megabytes", opt_xenheap_megabytes);
>>
>> static __used void init_done(void)
>> {
>> + free_ebmalloc_unused_mem();
>
> I said no to this on the previous version. And I think Jan suggested a
> per-arch way to do it. So why is it here?
No, I specifically did not. I intended this to be universal, but then I
wasn't really aware that on ARM the EFI loader is so much different
from x86's.
Before coming to a final conclusion I'd really like to understand how
you would see dynamic memory allocation to work for pieces of data
to be communicated from EFI loader to main Xen. That'll determine
whether I'll have to grumblingly accept this code to be x86-specific.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
