> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:47 PM > > >>> On 23.01.17 at 19:20, <venu.busire...@oracle.com> wrote: > > + overlap = false; > > + list_for_each_entry(rmrru, &acpi_rmrr_units, list) > > + { > > + if ( pfn_to_paddr(base) <= rmrru->end_address && > > + rmrru->base_address <= pfn_to_paddr(end) ) > > So this now looks correct as long as rmrru->base_address is > page aligned (as required by the spec), which should be good > enough for now (considering that we make this assumption > elsewhere). Nevertheless it would have been nice if you had, > following the subsequent discussion with Elena, accounted for > spec violations here. > > > + rmrr->segment = seg; > > + rmrr->base_address = pfn_to_paddr(user_rmrrs[i].base_pfn); > > + /* Align the end_address to the end of the page */ > > + rmrr->end_address = pfn_to_paddr(user_rmrrs[i].end_pfn) | > ~PAGE_MASK_4K; > > Hmm, Ive just checked - in my reply to Elena I had intentionally used > PAGE_MASK here (and I recall correcting it from PAGE_MASK_4K). > What has led you to use PAGE_MASK_4K here, when pfn_to_paddr() > uses PAGE_SHIFT? > > With this corrected (which can be done upon commit, but I'd first > like to understand your reasoning): > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > And despite Kevin's ack being present here, in light of what I've > said on the other patch - Kevin, please confirm your ack. >
Sure, here is my confirm: Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com> btw good to catch it right before my vacation to not block check-in. :-) Thanks Kevin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
