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-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][GFW][RFC] fix EFI_SAL_SET_VECTORS

Hi,

I could not boot the guest HVM when I build gfw with cached physical
addresses. So I changed to uncached addresses.

I confirmed to boot it with your patch.

Thanks,
KAZ

From: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH][GFW][RFC] fix EFI_SAL_SET_VECTORS
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:18:03 +0900

> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:43:24AM +0200, tgingold@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Quoting Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:24:16PM +0200, tgingold@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > The uncached physical addresses are hard coded, but they aren't
> > > > > relocated when switching to virtual address mode.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure ConvertPointer is able to deal with uncached addresses.
> > > Anyway,
> > > > using normal addresses should be harmless.
> > >
> > > I guess that the original auther concerned about a race so that
> > > he used uncached addresses.
> > 
> > I don't catch your point.  Uncached addresses won't prevent races.
> 
> No, it doesn't prevent.
> I don't understand why uncached address was used either.
> I had tried to guess the code intention, but I'm not sure.
> Kaz, any comment?
> 
> -- 
> yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel