[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] x86/PVH: Support relocatable dom0 kernels
- To: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:24:23 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:24:30 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 08.04.2024 18:56, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2024-04-08 03:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.04.2024 23:25, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c
>>> @@ -537,6 +537,111 @@ static paddr_t __init find_memory(
>>> return INVALID_PADDR;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool __init check_load_address(
>>> + const struct domain *d, const struct elf_binary *elf)
>>> +{
>>> + paddr_t kernel_start = (uintptr_t)elf->dest_base;
>>> + paddr_t kernel_end = kernel_start + elf->dest_size;
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>
>> While properly typed here, ...
>>
>>> +static paddr_t __init find_kernel_memory(
>>> + const struct domain *d, struct elf_binary *elf,
>>> + const struct elf_dom_parms *parms)
>>> +{
>>> + paddr_t kernel_size = elf->dest_size;
>>> + unsigned int align;
>>> + int i;
>>
>> ... I must have missed when this was changed to plain int. It should have
>> been unsigned int here, too, ...
>>
>>> + if ( parms->phys_align != UNSET_ADDR32 )
>>> + align = parms->phys_align;
>>> + else if ( elf->palign >= PAGE_SIZE )
>>> + align = elf->palign;
>>> + else
>>> + align = MB(2);
>>> +
>>> + /* Search backwards to find the highest address. */
>>> + for ( i = d->arch.nr_e820 - 1; i >= 0 ; i-- )
>>
>> ... with this suitably adjusted. However, I'm not going to change this while
>> committing, to avoid screwing up.
>
> I intentionally changed this. Looping downwards, a signed int allows
> writing the check naturally with i >= 0. I think it's clearer when
> written this way.
Just to clarify: Is
for ( i = d->arch.nr_e820; i--; )
any less clear? (While replying I also notice there's a stray blank
in the for() you have, ahead of the 2nd semicolon.)
Jan
|