If i''m not mistaken, this was what was intended. sRp -- Scott Parish Signed-off-by: srparish@us.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 5/12/05, Scott Parish <srparish@us.ibm.com> wrote:> If i''m not mistaken, this was what was intended.Looks to me like the current code tries to handle the case where an e820 entry starts not on a page boundary -- not sure this is needed... christian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 12 May 2005, at 14:45, Christian Limpach wrote:> Looks to me like the current code tries to handle the case where an > e820 entry starts not on a page boundary -- not sure this is needed...It''s probably rounding the wrong way: should consider only pages completely covered by the e820 range. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:58:10PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:> > On 12 May 2005, at 14:45, Christian Limpach wrote: > > >Looks to me like the current code tries to handle the case where an > >e820 entry starts not on a page boundary -- not sure this is needed... > > It''s probably rounding the wrong way: should consider only pages > completely covered by the e820 range.At least the current code is consistent. christian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 12 May 2005, at 14:58, Christian Limpach wrote:> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:58:10PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: >> >> On 12 May 2005, at 14:45, Christian Limpach wrote: >> >>> Looks to me like the current code tries to handle the case where an >>> e820 entry starts not on a page boundary -- not sure this is >>> needed... >> >> It''s probably rounding the wrong way: should consider only pages >> completely covered by the e820 range. > > At least the current code is consistent. > > christianActually it''s deciding what should be marked as ''I/O memory''. The current code includes fractional pages -- since such pages are never registered with the RAM allocator, this policy doesn''t seem harmful. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel