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

[Xen-devel] RE: Changeset 20209 causes an issue in xen_in_range()

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: Changeset 20209 causes an issue in xen_in_range()
From: "Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:19:10 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:19:41 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C774B4D4.660C%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <4B4F0C440200007800029F04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C774B4D4.660C%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcqVC7WojRF7R9KjTMmsbJaWBuv/iwAA6WDaAADpL+A=
Thread-topic: Changeset 20209 causes an issue in xen_in_range()
I am curious that all bits of cpu_possible_map are all set to 1, so the related 
checks in percpu_free_unused_areas are unnecessary ?    
Xiantao


Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 14/01/2010 11:21, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>>> However, in iommu_set_dom0_mapping(), xen_in_range() is still True
>>>> for the freed pages above, so devices in Dom0 can meet with DMA
>>>> fault. 
>>> 
>>> Should be fixed by c/s 20803.
>> 
>> Do you really think so? Masking "start" with PERCPU_SIZE-1 doesn't
>> make sense, as it may be arbitrarily before __percpu_start and
>> not aligned. Below my take on it.
> 
> How about c/s 20806?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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