[Xen-devel] 64bit xen relocation

To:	"Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] 64bit xen relocation
From:	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:49:51 +0800
Cc:
Delivery-date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:50:25 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AckT/B4Ekg5O316vT3ey/Zq7Nwo/Ug==
Thread-topic:	64bit xen relocation

One question is, why are 0-1M frames also copied to high end
which are then clobbered immediately? It looks like unnecessary
if just for leaving a guard range from stray pointers...

move_memory(e, 0, __pa(&_end) - xen_phys_start);

/* Poison low 1MB to detect stray pointers to physical 0-1MB. */
memset(maddr_to_bootstrap_virt(e), 0x55, 1U<<20);

Thanks,
Kevin

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] 64bit xen relocation