Hi Jan,
On 5/6/19 10:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.05.19 at 22:50, <[email protected]> wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
@@ -481,10 +481,15 @@ static paddr_t __init next_module(paddr_t s, paddr_t *end)
static void __init init_pdx(void)
{
paddr_t bank_start, bank_size, bank_end;
-
- u64 mask = pdx_init_mask(bootinfo.mem.bank[0].start);
+ u64 mask;
int bank;
+ /*
+ * We always map the first 1<<MAX_ORDER of RAM, hence, they are left
"... pages of RAM." ?
+ * uncompressed.
+ */
+ mask = pdx_init_mask(1ULL << (MAX_ORDER + PAGE_SHIFT));
PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER?
Hmmm, I am not entirely convince this will give the correct value
because PAGE_SIZE is defined as (_AC(1, L) << PAGE_SHIFT.
I wonder whether pdx_init_mask() itself wouldn't better apply this
(lower) cap
Do you mean always returning (PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER) or capping the
init mask?
Note that the later will not produce the same behavior as this patch.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
