On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 02:42:50AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.12.17 at 16:12, wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:02:02AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 04.12.17 at 11:24, wrote:
> >> > Current limit, PFN_DOWN(xen_phys_start),
>>> On 11.12.17 at 16:12, wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:02:02AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 04.12.17 at 11:24, wrote:
>> > Current limit, PFN_DOWN(xen_phys_start), introduced by commit b280442
>> > (x86: make Xen early boot code
>>> On 04.12.17 at 11:24, wrote:
> Current limit, PFN_DOWN(xen_phys_start), introduced by commit b280442
> (x86: make Xen early boot code relocatable) is not reliable. Potentially
> its value may fall below PFN_DOWN(__pa(_end))
Under what (perhaps just theoretical)
Current limit, PFN_DOWN(xen_phys_start), introduced by commit b280442
(x86: make Xen early boot code relocatable) is not reliable. Potentially
its value may fall below PFN_DOWN(__pa(_end)) and then part of Xen image
may not be mapped after relocation. This will not happen in current code
thanks to