Re: [Xen-devel] Baffled by multipage_allocation_permitted()

>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 15.06.09 23:57 >>>
>On 15/06/2009 22:44, "Dave McCracken" <dcm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> #define multipage_allocation_permitted(d)   \
>>    (!rangeset_is_empty((d)->iomem_caps) || \
>>     !rangeset_is_empty((d)->arch.ioport_caps))
>> 
>> I had never tracked down the significance of this macro since it didn't 
>> appear
>> to be an issue.  Now it's suddenly denying me the ability to work in 2M 
>> pages.
>> 
>> What is this macro trying to achieve?  Why is it necessary?  Is there any
>> compelling reason we can't just remove it and allow multipage allocations 
>> from
>> any domain?
>
>We can just get rid of it I think. There are arguably worse other things we
>already allow, like any guest can allocate low memory by specifying a small
>value of XENMEMF_address_bits().

Wouldn't it be better to tighten things rather than relaxing them?

Jan


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

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Dedicating a physical CPU core to a VM, Jean Guyader

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: fix s3 resume on AMD CPUs, Keir Fraser

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] Baffled by multipage_allocation_permitted(), Keir Fraser

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] Baffled by multipage_allocation_permitted(), Keir Fraser

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]