[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/7] xen: support RAM at addresses 0 and 4096
On 13/09/2013 04:20, "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Actually, if I don't make a mess of my arithmetic then I don't think > this is needed, at least not for correctness. > > page_to_zone() is still wrong for page 0, but that was true with the > previous version too, hence the checks to avoid adding page 0 to any > heap. > > The difference is that it now ends up in zone 0 (Xen, bad) instead of > zone -1 (even worse!). Even that could be solved with this extra hunk > (which would mean we could drop all the checks in init_*_pages from > below too): > > @@ -268,7 +267,7 @@ unsigned long __init alloc_boot_pages( > > #define bits_to_zone(b) (((b) < (PAGE_SHIFT + 1)) ? 1 : ((b) - PAGE_SHIFT)) > #define page_to_zone(pg) (is_xen_heap_page(pg) ? MEMZONE_XEN : \ > - (fls(page_to_mfn(pg)))) > + (fls(page_to_mfn(pg)) ? : 1)) > > typedef struct page_list_head > heap_by_zone_and_order_t[NR_ZONES][MAX_ORDER+1]; > static heap_by_zone_and_order_t *_heap[MAX_NUMNODES]; > > What do you think? Yeah, looks good! -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |