On 15/04/2020 02:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Use reserve_domheap_pages to implement the direct-map ranges allocation
for DomUs.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@xilinx.com>
---
xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
index a2bb411568..627e0c5e8e 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
@@ -198,6 +198,40 @@ fail:
return false;
}
+static void __init reserve_memory_11(struct domain *d,
+ struct kernel_info *kinfo,
+ struct membank *banks,
+ unsigned int nr_banks)
Can we stop introduce more void function and properly return an error?
+{
+ unsigned int i, order;
+ struct page_info *pg;
+
+ kinfo->mem.nr_banks = 0;
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < nr_banks; i++ )
+ {
+ order = get_order_from_bytes(banks[i].size);
+ pg = reserve_domheap_pages(d, banks[i].start, order, 0);
+ if ( pg == NULL || !insert_11_bank(d, kinfo, pg, order) )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR
+ "%pd: cannot reserve memory start=%#"PRIpaddr"
size=%#"PRIpaddr"\n",
+ d, banks[i].start, banks[i].size);
+ BUG();
+ }
+ }
+
+ for( i = 0; i < kinfo->mem.nr_banks; i++ )
+ {
+ printk("BANK[%d] %#"PRIpaddr"-%#"PRIpaddr" (%ldMB)\n",
+ i,
+ kinfo->mem.bank[i].start,
+ kinfo->mem.bank[i].start + kinfo->mem.bank[i].size,
+ /* Don't want format this as PRIpaddr (16 digit hex) */
+ (unsigned long)(kinfo->mem.bank[i].size >> 20));
+ }
+}
+
/*
* This is all pretty horrible.
*
@@ -2477,8 +2511,7 @@ static int __init construct_domU(struct domain *d,
banks[i].start, banks[i].size);
}
- /* reserve_memory_11(d, &kinfo, &banks[0], i); */
- BUG();
+ reserve_memory_11(d, &kinfo, &banks[0], i);
If you fold this in #3 and re-order the patches then you don't need the
the commented code + BUG().
}
rc = prepare_dtb_domU(d, &kinfo);
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
