Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4 03/15] create arch functions to get and process EFI memory map.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 11.09.14 at 19:40, <roy.franz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 10.09.14 at 02:51, <roy.franz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -1171,67 +1169,12 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE 
>>> *SystemTable)
>>>          }
>>>      }
>>>
>>> -    efi_bs->GetMemoryMap(&efi_memmap_size, NULL, &map_key,
>>> -                         &efi_mdesc_size, &mdesc_ver);
>>> -    mbi.mem_upper -= efi_memmap_size;
>>> -    mbi.mem_upper &= -__alignof__(EFI_MEMORY_DESCRIPTOR);
>>> -    if ( mbi.mem_upper < xen_phys_start )
>>> -        blexit(L"Out of static memory");
>>> -    efi_memmap = (void *)(long)mbi.mem_upper;
>>> -    status = efi_bs->GetMemoryMap(&efi_memmap_size, efi_memmap, &map_key,
>>> -                                  &efi_mdesc_size, &mdesc_ver);
>>> -    if ( EFI_ERROR(status) )
>>> -        PrintErrMesg(L"Cannot obtain memory map", status);
>>> +    efi_arch_get_memory_map(&mmap_size, &mmap, &mmap_key,
>>> +                                  &mmap_desc_size, &mmap_desc_ver);
>>
>> The only arch-specific bit here is where to put the map.
> Yes, but the ARM method of allocating the space can make the map
> bigger.  I can re-arrange
> this so that only the memory allocation is in the arch code, but I
> think the current implementation
> is also reasonable.

Hmm, yes, if ARM has no way of avoiding the growth of the map
during allocation (which at a first glance seems suspicious to me),
then yes. Is there a problem allocating a few more entries than the
map's current size, so the possible growth can be accommodated?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel