Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Follow-up static shared memory PART I

[Penny Zheng <penny.zheng@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Michal

On 2023/9/11 17:01, Michal Orzel wrote:
> Hi Penny,
>
> On 11/09/2023 06:04, Penny Zheng wrote:
> > There are some unsolving issues on current 4.17 static shared memory
> > feature[1], including:
> > - In order to avoid keeping growing 'membank', having the shared memory
> > info in separate structures is preferred.
> > - Missing implementation on having the host address optional in
> > "xen,shared-mem" property
> > - Removing static shared memory from extended regions
> > - Missing reference release on foreign superpage
> > - Fix duplicated /reserved-memory node on Dom0
> > - Missing static shm node declaration on guest /memory node
> > - Missing "xen,offset" feature, which is introduced in Linux DOC[2]
> >
> > All above objects have been divided into two parts to complete. And this
> > patch serie is PART I.
> Just like I pointed out in the previous revision, there is a gitlab CI failure 
> on shared-memory jobs:
> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/patchew/xen/-/pipelines/999098293
> Did you change the interface that could lead to this (I cannot spot any change 
> in the docs refinment) ?
> No Xen logs meaning the early boot failure. Please check.
Soooooo sorry. I miss-looked that comment. I found that bug exists in 
bootfdt.c.
```
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
index 7d86dffd45..290dd27bf4 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/bootfdt.c
@@ -532,6 +532,8 @@ static int __init process_shm_node(const void *fdt, 
int node,
                            size, tot_size);
                     return -EINVAL;
                 }
+
+                break;
             }
             else if ( paddr_assigned )
             {
```
I accidentally delete a `break;` here, and I will also comment in the 
related commit and fix in next version!
> ~Michal