WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64-phys-ma.patch

To: Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64-phys-ma.patch
From: Christian Limpach <christian.limpach@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:30:43 +0100
Cc: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:30:18 +0000
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JEiz9GAYErPX5c6ercxQMcG/Z6KDqxzet8bv2e0bT1aA8GCfYg/D10GZ9s8oTBPA//EvfyMbU7KQZ1eOaqePGThrfoNFhk8RTh+zsAgrRLtQlT2zgIEnzymh1eIfGi0XD/DiclCh2N/sE4kmblwXnVOHW6+ubm3mnHgjxG49/3M=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050512210714.GA29374@xxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20050512210714.GA29374@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn't try to convert guest 
> physical to machine physical.

Are you sure that the test a few lines further down shouldn't use (a
to be defined -- see i386) pte_val_ma to compare the currently
installed pte with the to-be-installed one?  You might be comparing
random values otherwise...

    christian

> 
> Signed-off-by: Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> --- a/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:19 
> -07:00
> +++ b/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:19 
> -07:00
> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@
>                 }
>         }
> 
> -       new_pte = pfn_pte(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot);
> +       new_pte = pfn_pte_ma(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot);
>         pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, vaddr);
> 
>         if (!pte_none(*pte) &&
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>