Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Patch] cleanup warning of UC|WB attributepage
I remade the patch as efi_ucwb() don't check EFI Mermoy Type. If we choice this approch, please apply it. Signed-off-by: Akio Takebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best Regards, Akio Takebe cleanup_warning_efi_uc2wb.v3.patch Description: Binary data ___ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Patch] cleanup warning of UC|WB attributepage
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 09:58 +0900, Akio Takebe wrote: BTW, I also thought another approch to prevent these case. Because these memory area is accessed as both UC and WB, we need to use new flag. (For example _PAGE_MA_UCE, I'm not sure we can use this flag for UC|WB. or should we make new flag?) In consideration of stability, I didn't make new flag. (Because I must check many part of memory access.) Which approch do you prefer? or another suggestion? That does sound rather involved. Unless others think the UCE page is a better way to go, perhaps we should use something like the approach you're suggesting. Newer upstream efi.c has a efi_mem_attribute() function that will give you the attributes for a given range of memory. Rather than implementing yet another EFI memmap walking routine, what do you think about updating efi.c to a newer upstream version and making use of this function? Thanks, Alex -- Alex Williamson HP Open Source Linux Org. ___ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Patch] cleanup warning of UC|WB attributepage
Hi, Alex On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 09:58 +0900, Akio Takebe wrote: BTW, I also thought another approch to prevent these case. Because these memory area is accessed as both UC and WB, we need to use new flag. (For example _PAGE_MA_UCE, I'm not sure we can use this flag for UC|WB. or should we make new flag?) In consideration of stability, I didn't make new flag. (Because I must check many part of memory access.) Which approch do you prefer? or another suggestion? That does sound rather involved. Unless others think the UCE page is a better way to go, perhaps we should use something like the approach you're suggesting. Newer upstream efi.c has a efi_mem_attribute() function that will give you the attributes for a given range of memory. Rather than implementing yet another EFI memmap walking routine, what do you think about updating efi.c to a newer upstream version and making use of this function? Thanks, Thank you for your comments. I'll check whether It is possible easy to port new efi.c to xen. Best Regards, Akio Takebe ___ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Patch] cleanup warning of UC|WB attributepage
Hi, Alex and all Why does efi_ucwb() only check certain types of ranges for having both UC and WB attributes. Seems like the types might be implementation specific. I'm also a little concerned about scanning the EFI memory map, but I guess this is expected to be a rare event. Is there an approach we could take to prevent these cases from happening (for a well behaved guest) rather than catching them at the end? Thanks, Exactly, I'll update the patch as efi_ucwb() don't check EFI Mermoy Type if we choice this approch. And as you said, this case is rare. So this scanning should not affect performance. BTW, I also thought another approch to prevent these case. Because these memory area is accessed as both UC and WB, we need to use new flag. (For example _PAGE_MA_UCE, I'm not sure we can use this flag for UC|WB. or should we make new flag?) In consideration of stability, I didn't make new flag. (Because I must check many part of memory access.) Which approch do you prefer? or another suggestion? Best Regards, Akio Takebe ___ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
