phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn''t try to convert guest physical to machine physical. Signed-off-by: Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com> --- a/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:19 -07:00 +++ b/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:19 -07:00 @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ } } - new_pte = pfn_pte(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot); + new_pte = pfn_pte_ma(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot); pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, vaddr); if (!pte_none(*pte) && _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com> wrote:> phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn''t try to convert guest physical to machine physical.Are you sure that the test a few lines further down shouldn''t use (a to be defined -- see i386) pte_val_ma to compare the currently installed pte with the to-be-installed one? You might be comparing random values otherwise... christian> > Signed-off-by: Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com> > > --- a/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:19 -07:00 > +++ b/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:19 -07:00 > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ > } > } > > - new_pte = pfn_pte(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot); > + new_pte = pfn_pte_ma(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot); > pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, vaddr); > > if (!pte_none(*pte) && > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Christian Limpach wrote:> On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com> wrote: > >>phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn''t try to convert guest physical to machine physical. > > > Are you sure that the test a few lines further down shouldn''t use (a > to be defined -- see i386) pte_val_ma to compare the currently > installed pte with the to-be-installed one? You might be comparing > random values otherwise... >Sounds reasonable. I tested that this incremental patch doesn''t cause any new regressions. -Arun _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com> wrote:> Christian Limpach wrote: > > On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com> wrote: > > > >>phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn''t try to convert guest physical to machine physical. > > > > > > Are you sure that the test a few lines further down shouldn''t use (a > > to be defined -- see i386) pte_val_ma to compare the currently > > installed pte with the to-be-installed one? You might be comparing > > random values otherwise... > > > > Sounds reasonable. I tested that this incremental patch doesn''t cause > any new regressions.Thanks -- checked in. christian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel