On 15.01.2020 10:40, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 14.01.2020 18:27, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 14/01/2020 17:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Even when that remaining issue got addressed, I think it would be better >>> to keep it, altering the bound to GB(1). >> >> A 1G check wouldn't be correct. >> >> We've already got a more suitable one, which is the check that Xen >> doesn't encroach into the stubs range. > > Oh, right. If only that check was correct. I guess it ought to be > using &, not |, and perhaps also __image_base__ == XEN_VIRT_START. > I'll give this a try and send a patch unless in the course of > doing so I realize there's a reason for it being the way it is.
So the | is correct (to deal with the case of the intermediate file getting linked at a different base address when producing xen.efi), but probably misleading. I guess I'll submit a patch anyway, despite the construct not being broken. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
