On 07/09/15 21:11, Bandan Das wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek writes:
> ...
First, see my comments on the KVM patch.
Second, ram_size is not the right thing to compare. What should be
checked is whether the highest guest-physical address that maps to RAM
can be represented in t
Igor Mammedov writes:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:42:01 -0400
> Bandan Das wrote:
>
>>
>> If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
>> by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
>> is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
>> what went wrong. This
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 09/07/2015 10:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps KVM could simply hide memory above the limit (i.e. treat it as
>>> > MMIO), and the BIOS could remove RAM above the limit from the e820
>>> > memory map?
>> I'd prefer to leave the guest firmware*s* out of this.
Laszlo Ersek writes:
...
>>>
>>> First, see my comments on the KVM patch.
>>>
>>> Second, ram_size is not the right thing to compare. What should be
>>> checked is whether the highest guest-physical address that maps to RAM
>>> can be represented in the address width of the host processor (and onl
On 09/07/2015 10:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps KVM could simply hide memory above the limit (i.e. treat it as
>> > MMIO), and the BIOS could remove RAM above the limit from the e820
>> > memory map?
> I'd prefer to leave the guest firmware*s* out of this... :)
>
> E820 is a legacy B
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:42:01 -0400
Bandan Das wrote:
>
> If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
> by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
> is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
> what went wrong. This change prints a message to stderr
On 07/09/15 11:27, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:02:38 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>> On 07/09/15 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
>>>
>>> If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
>>> by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
>>> is expected, however, th
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:02:38 +0200
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 07/09/15 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
> >
> > If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
> > by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
> > is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
> > what
On 07/09/15 09:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 09/07/2015 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
>>
>> If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
>> by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
>> is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
>> what went wrong. Thi
On 09/07/2015 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
>
> If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
> by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
> is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
> what went wrong. This change prints a message to stderr if
> KVM has t
On 07/09/15 00:42, Bandan Das wrote:
>
> If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
> by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
> is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
> what went wrong. This change prints a message to stderr if
> KVM has the c
If a Linux guest is assigned more memory than is supported
by the host processor, the guest is unable to boot. That
is expected, however, there's no message indicating the user
what went wrong. This change prints a message to stderr if
KVM has the corresponding capability.
Reported-by: Laszlo Ers
12 matches
Mail list logo
