RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH v2.0 0/6] Add memory add support to Xen

["Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>]

xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10.07.09 10:38 >>>
>> On 10/07/2009 09:32, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote: 
>> 
>>>> This for x86/64 guests of course. We already established that
>>>> compat guests and memory add are going to have lesser mutual
>>>> support. 
>>> 
>>>  I checked this before and I thought it is ok.
>>> Currently the machine_to_phys_order is caculated based on return
>>> value of XENMEM_machphys_mapping. For both x86_32 and non-compat
>>> x86_64, this size will not be adjusted dynamically, so it is ok (it
>>> will cover the whole possible range). The only issue is for
>>> compatible domain. For compatible domain, the value returned in
>>> XENMEM_machphys_mapping is adjusted (i.e.
>>> MACH2PHYS_COMPAT_VIRT_START(d)). However, 
> domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize() in
>>> domainheap allocator will make sure the hot-added memory will not
>>> be assigned to the guest. 
>>> 
>>> Did I miss-understand something?
>> 
>> Sounds okay to me. Perhaps Jan has other thoughts?
> 
> Oh, indeed - somehow I (incorrectly) recalled that this hypercall
> returned the actually used boundary rather than the highest possible
> one. With me being wrong here, all should be fine with that change.
> 
> Sorry for the noise,
> Jan

Thanks for your review and consideration indeed !

--jyh

> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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