On 01.04.2025 17:58, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > On 3/31/25 6:14 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 31.03.2025 17:20, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> + _AC(XEN_VIRT_START, UL) >> vpn1_shift; >>> + const unsigned long xen_virt_end_vpn = >>> + xen_virt_starn_vpn + ((XEN_VIRT_SIZE >> vpn1_shift) - 1); >>> + >>> if ((va >= DIRECTMAP_VIRT_START) && >>> (va <= DIRECTMAP_VIRT_END)) >>> return directmapoff_to_maddr(va - directmap_virt_start); >>> >>> - BUILD_BUG_ON(XEN_VIRT_SIZE != MB(2)); >>> - ASSERT((va >> (PAGETABLE_ORDER + PAGE_SHIFT)) == >>> - (_AC(XEN_VIRT_START, UL) >> (PAGETABLE_ORDER + PAGE_SHIFT))); >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(XEN_VIRT_SIZE != MB(8)); >> Is it necessary to be != ? Won't > suffice? > > It could be just > MB(2). Or perphaps >=.
>= would make the build fail, wouldn't it? >>> + ASSERT((va_vpn >= xen_virt_starn_vpn) && (va_vpn <= xen_virt_end_vpn)); >> Are you sure about <= on the rhs of the && ? > > I am using -1 [ ((XEN_VIRT_SIZE >> vpn1_shift) - 1) ] when calculating the > xen_virt_end_vpn to make the range inclusive. Oh, indeed, I didn't look there closely enough. Jan
