>>
>> Switching to bitfields was, btw, suggested by Jan at some point so if
>> the two of you agree on how to proceed I can go either way (but by
>> preference is to keep it as a single-bit bitfield).
>
> If you use a single-bit bitfield of bool (i.e bool need_flush : 1) you
> would address both J
On 07/08/17 17:57, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
index ef84b72..d26b232 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
@@ -44,7 +44,16 @@ struct page_info
/* Page is on a free list: ((count_info & PGC_c
>>>
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
index ef84b72..d26b232 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/mm.h
@@ -44,7 +44,16 @@ struct page_info
/* Page is on a free list: ((count_info & PGC_count_mask) ==
>
>>> Boris Ostrovsky 08/07/17 4:56 PM >>>
>On 08/07/2017 10:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Boris Ostrovsky 08/07/17 4:16 PM >>>
>>> On 08/06/2017 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Boris Ostrovsky 08/04/17 7:03 PM >>>
> +/* See if any of the pages indeed need scrubbing. */
Hi,
On 07/08/17 15:46, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 08/07/2017 06:45 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Boris,
I would have appreciated to be CCed as maintainer of the ARM bits...
Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl in the future.
Ugh, sorry about that. (I did test builds for both ARM64 and ARM32, if
On 08/07/2017 10:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Boris Ostrovsky 08/07/17 4:16 PM >>>
>> On 08/06/2017 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Boris Ostrovsky 08/04/17 7:03 PM >>>
+/* See if any of the pages indeed need scrubbing. */
+if ( first_dirty != INVA
On 08/07/2017 06:45 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> I would have appreciated to be CCed as maintainer of the ARM bits...
> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl in the future.
Ugh, sorry about that. (I did test builds for both ARM64 and ARM32, if
this make my transgression any less serious
Boris Ostrovsky 08/07/17 4:16 PM >>>
>On 08/06/2017 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Boris Ostrovsky 08/04/17 7:03 PM >>>
>>> +/* See if any of the pages indeed need scrubbing. */
>>> +if ( first_dirty != INVALID_DIRTY_IDX )
>>> +{
>>> +
On 08/06/2017 01:41 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
Boris Ostrovsky 08/04/17 7:03 PM >>>
>> @@ -873,6 +916,8 @@ static int reserve_offlined_page(struct page_info *head)
> >
>> while ( cur_order < head_order )
>> {
>> +unsigned int idx = INVALID_DIRTY_IDX;
> Is it correct for the variable
Hi Boris,
I would have appreciated to be CCed as maintainer of the ARM bits...
Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl in the future.
On 04/08/17 18:05, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
. so that it's easy to find pages that need to be scrubbed (those pages are
Pointless .
diff --git a/xen/include/as
>>> Boris Ostrovsky 08/04/17 7:03 PM >>>
>@@ -873,6 +916,8 @@ static int reserve_offlined_page(struct page_info *head)
>
>while ( cur_order < head_order )
>{
>+unsigned int idx = INVALID_DIRTY_IDX;
Is it correct for the variable to live in this scope, rather than ...
>@@ -892,8 +937
. so that it's easy to find pages that need to be scrubbed (those pages are
now marked with _PGC_need_scrub bit).
We keep track of the first unscrubbed page in a page buddy using first_dirty
field. For now it can have two values, 0 (whole buddy needs scrubbing) or
INVALID_DIRTY_IDX (the buddy does
12 matches
Mail list logo