[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: xen: do not create the extra e820 region at an addr lower than 4G
I can't find this patch on any mailing list to respond to so starting a new thread. In case I've not missed it but instead it really wasn't posted -- in the future can we try and ensure that any patches have been posted at least once. Same for the pull request, it should go to a list. BTW the version in Konrad's tree is Stefano's 2.6.39-rc1-fixes branch but Stefano's tree only has 2.6.39-rc2-fixes now -- is that important? Anyway, the patch itself: diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c index 9c38bd1..f831568 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ char * __init xen_memory_setup(void) memcpy(map_raw, map, sizeof(map)); e820.nr_map = 0; - xen_extra_mem_start = mem_end; + xen_extra_mem_start = mem_end < (1UL<<32) ? (1UL<<32) : mem_end; for (i = 0; i < memmap.nr_entries; i++) { unsigned long long end; "(1UL<<32)" will overflow on a 32 bit kernel. Oh hang on... that's the difference between the -rc1 and -rc2 versions of Stefano's branches: diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c index f831568..ee44c56 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/setup.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/setup.c @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ char * __init xen_memory_setup(void) memcpy(map_raw, map, sizeof(map)); e820.nr_map = 0; - xen_extra_mem_start = mem_end < (1UL<<32) ? (1UL<<32) : mem_end; + xen_extra_mem_start = max((1ULL <<32), mem_end); for (i = 0; i < memmap.nr_entries; i++) { unsigned long long end; So I guess it was important! (also the whitespace in "(1ULL <<32)" is a bit funky, checkpatch whinges too) Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |