[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 49/62] arm/acpi: Map rest tables for Dom0
Hi, On 27/11/15 12:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Map other reused tables for Dom0. > > "Map all other tables to Dom0 using 1:1 mappings." > > >> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >> index 6ae5761..da4e271 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >> @@ -1359,6 +1359,29 @@ static int prepare_dtb(struct domain *d, struct >> kernel_info *kinfo) >> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >> #define XEN_HYPERVISOR_ID 0x000058656E564D4D /* "XenVMM" */ >> >> +static void acpi_map_rest_tables(struct domain *d) > > The name doesn't sound nice, "acpi_map_other_tables" would be better. > However this function is not actually mapping the other tables, it is > mapping *all* of them, including the original madt and fadt, right? I > think it would be best to avoid mapping the originals. > > >> +{ >> + int i; >> + unsigned long res; >> + u64 addr, size; > > Add a comment that they are being mapped 1:1 I don't like the fact that we begin to assume domain is mapped 1:1 in so many places. If we decide one day to drop the 1:1 mapping it would be more difficult. Can we try to rationalize the place where the 1:1 mapping is added? Some ASSERT(is_domain_direct_mapped(..)) would be useful too. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |