>>> On 12.11.18 at 20:01, wrote:
> On 12/11/18 09:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.11.18 at 15:42, wrote:
>>> For order 32 or more, the shift will truncate. Spotted by Coverity.
>> I find this pretty absurd. What about order 64 or more? Are you
>> suggesting you expect 16Tb or larger bad page
On 12/11/18 09:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.11.18 at 15:42, wrote:
>> For order 32 or more, the shift will truncate. Spotted by Coverity.
> I find this pretty absurd. What about order 64 or more? Are you
> suggesting you expect 16Tb or larger bad page ranges?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew
>>> On 09.11.18 at 15:42, wrote:
> For order 32 or more, the shift will truncate. Spotted by Coverity.
I find this pretty absurd. What about order 64 or more? Are you
suggesting you expect 16Tb or larger bad page ranges?
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Anyway, as I don't mind the adjustment
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:42:55PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> For order 32 or more, the shift will truncate. Spotted by Coverity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
For order 32 or more, the shift will truncate. Spotted by Coverity.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan Beulich
CC: Wei Liu
---
xen/common/page_alloc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/page_alloc.c b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
index
