>>> On 23.03.17 at 17:44, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > On 23/03/17 16:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 23.03.17 at 07:25, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S >>> @@ -335,3 +335,5 @@ ASSERT(IS_ALIGNED(__bss_end, 8), "__bss_end >>> misaligned") >>> >>> ASSERT((trampoline_end - trampoline_start) < TRAMPOLINE_SPACE - >>> MBI_SPACE_MIN, >>> "not enough room for trampoline and mbi data") >>> +ASSERT((trampoline_boot_start - wakeup_stack_start) >= WAKEUP_STACK_MIN, >>> + "wakeup stack too small") >> >> ... use wakeup_stack here too? > > It would work, yes. With my pending patch for releasing the memory of > the boot-only trampoline code this would look a little bit strange: > I'd have to free the memory named "wakeup_stack" and the label > "trampoline_boot_start" would be unused.
Well, the implication from my reply was that trampoline_boot_start likely can be dropped. Freeing from wakeup_stack onwards seems quite reasonable, since the stack is the last thing you want to keep. > In case you'd prefer it I can just place trampoline_boot_start at the > same location as wakeup_stack_start and free the boot trampoline > memory by using the next page boundary. That's an option too. What I'd like to avoid is a mix of things like in the ASSERT() above - the expression should be in wakeup stack terms only. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
