On 05.12.2023 16:31, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:11:21PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.12.2023 10:43, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>> @@ -2136,6 +2136,54 @@ int __hwdom_init xen_in_range(unsigned long mfn)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +int __hwdom_init remove_xen_ranges(struct rangeset *r)
>>> +{
>>> + paddr_t start, end;
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + /* S3 resume code (and other real mode trampoline code) */
>>> + rc = rangeset_remove_range(r, PFN_DOWN(bootsym_phys(trampoline_start)),
>>> + PFN_DOWN(bootsym_phys(trampoline_end)));
>>> + if ( rc )
>>> + return rc;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * This needs to remain in sync with the uses of the same symbols in
>>> + * - __start_xen()
>>> + * - is_xen_fixed_mfn()
>>> + * - tboot_shutdown()
>>> + */
>>
>> As you're duplicating this comment from xen_in_range(), you want to
>> - also mention xen_in_range() here,
>> - also update xen_in_range()'s comment,
>
> xen_in_range() is going away in the last patch, hence I did bother tyo
> update it.
>
>> - also update the respective comments in __start_xen() that also mention
>> xen_in_range().
>
> That's done in patch 6/6.
>
>> Everything else here looks good to me.
>
> Let me know if doing such changes in a later patch is OK.
If xen_in_range() is indeed going to go away (see my question there), I'd be
okay-ish with that.
Jan
