>>> On 19.12.17 at 16:03, wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.12.17 at 15:25, wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> + memmap.nr_entries = ARRAY_SIZE(xen_e820_table->entries);
Is it
>>> On 19.12.17 at 16:03, wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.12.17 at 15:25, wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> + memmap.nr_entries = ARRAY_SIZE(xen_e820_table->entries);
Is it really reasonable to have a static upper bound here? As we
On 12/19/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.12.17 at 15:25, wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
+ if (!xen_e820_table)
+ return;
>>> Not saying "out of
On 12/19/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.12.17 at 15:25, wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
+ if (!xen_e820_table)
+ return;
>>> Not saying "out of memory" here is certainly fine, but shouldn't
>>> there
>>> On 19.12.17 at 15:25, wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
>>> + if (!xen_e820_table)
>>> + return;
>> Not saying "out of memory" here is certainly fine, but shouldn't
>>
>>> On 19.12.17 at 15:25, wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
>>> + if (!xen_e820_table)
>>> + return;
>> Not saying "out of memory" here is certainly fine, but shouldn't
>> there nevertheless be a warning, as failure to go through
On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
+
+ xen_e820_table = kzalloc(sizeof(*xen_e820_table), GFP_KERNEL);
> Wouldn't kmalloc() suffice here?
Yes.
>
>> +if (!xen_e820_table)
>> +return;
> Not saying
On 12/19/2017 03:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
+
+ xen_e820_table = kzalloc(sizeof(*xen_e820_table), GFP_KERNEL);
> Wouldn't kmalloc() suffice here?
Yes.
>
>> +if (!xen_e820_table)
>> +return;
> Not saying "out of memory" here is
On 19/12/17 10:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.12.17 at 10:21, wrote:
>> On 19/12/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
+void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
+{
+ struct
On 19/12/17 10:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.12.17 at 10:21, wrote:
>> On 19/12/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
+void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
+{
+ struct xen_memory_map memmap;
+ int rc;
+
>>> On 19.12.17 at 10:21, wrote:
> On 19/12/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
>>> +void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
>>> +{
>>> + struct xen_memory_map memmap;
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> On 19.12.17 at 10:21, wrote:
> On 19/12/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
>>> +void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
>>> +{
>>> + struct xen_memory_map memmap;
>>> + int rc;
>>> + unsigned int i, last_guest_ram;
>>> +
On 19/12/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
>> +void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
>> +{
>> +struct xen_memory_map memmap;
>> +int rc;
>> +unsigned int i, last_guest_ram;
>> +phys_addr_t
On 19/12/17 09:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
>> +void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
>> +{
>> +struct xen_memory_map memmap;
>> +int rc;
>> +unsigned int i, last_guest_ram;
>> +phys_addr_t max_addr = max_pfn <<
>>> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
> +void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
> +{
> + struct xen_memory_map memmap;
> + int rc;
> + unsigned int i, last_guest_ram;
> + phys_addr_t max_addr = max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
PFN_PHYS()
>>> On 18.12.17 at 23:22, wrote:
> +void __init arch_xen_balloon_init(struct resource *hostmem_resource)
> +{
> + struct xen_memory_map memmap;
> + int rc;
> + unsigned int i, last_guest_ram;
> + phys_addr_t max_addr = max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
PFN_PHYS() as right now you still have
16 matches
Mail list logo