On 18.12.2019 02:32, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
> @@ -725,7 +701,7 @@ static int __init microcode_init(void)
> */
> if ( ucode_blob.size )
> {
> - xfree(ucode_blob.data);
> + bootstrap_map(NULL);
As much as I like the change, I wholeheartedly disagree with this
aspect of it: You make it largely unpredictable when the boot
mappings will go away - it becomes entirely dependent upon link
order. And of course we really want these mappings to be gone,
the very latest (I think), by the time we start bringing up APs
(but generally the sooner the better). This is (one of?) the main
reason(s) why it hadn't been done this way to begin with. The
alternative is more complicated (set up a proper, long term
mapping), but it's going to be more clean (including the mapping
then also being suitable to post-boot CPU onlining).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
