Re: [Minios-devel] [PATCH 05/40] arm64: fix the wrong mask for to_virt/to_phys

[Huang Shijie <shijie.huang@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:09:46AM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/11/17 09:48, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:03:16PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 03/11/17 03:11, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > +#define to_phys(x)                 
> > > > (((paddr_t)(x)-physical_address_offset) & ADDR_MASK)
> > > 
> > > Why did you switch from an addition to a subtraction?
> > > 
> > > > +#define to_virt(x)                 ((void 
> > > > *)(((x)+physical_address_offset) & ADDR_MASK))
> > > Why did you switch from a subtraction to an addition?
> > 
> > I do not have an arm32 platform.
> 
> Well, you said you tested on softiron which support 32-bit guests. So what's
> the problem?
> 
> But I am struggling to understand why in some places you say: "This does not
> work for arm32". Implying you tested it. And here you say: "I don't have any
> platform".
I added some hack code to pass the arm32 compiler, and tested in the
softiron platform: Please see the log :
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [ == ROOT@ Softiron -- Ubuntu ~ == ] #xl create -c mini-os-arm32.conf
 Parsing config from mini-os-arm32.conf
 libxl: error: libxl_arm.c:603:get_arch_info: Unable to find arch FDT info for 
xen-3.0-unknown
 libxl: error: libxl_dom.c:660:libxl__build_dom: 
libxl__arch_domain_init_hw_description failed: No such file or directory
 libxl: error: libxl_create.c:1217:domcreate_rebuild_done: Domain 6:cannot 
(re-)build domain: -3
 libxl: error: libxl_domain.c:1003:libxl__destroy_domid: Domain 6:Non-existant 
domain
 libxl: error: libxl_domain.c:962:domain_destroy_callback: Domain 6:Unable to 
destroy guest
 libxl: error: libxl_domain.c:889:domain_destroy_cb: Domain 6:Destruction of 
domain failed
  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------




> 
> AFAICT, there are no way to compile Arm with current master:
> 
> make TARGET_ARCH_FAM=arm
> 
> 
> 
> Config.mk:93: /home/julieng/works/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk: No such file or
> directory
> make: *** No rule to make target
> '/home/julieng/works/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk'.  Stop.
> 
> So what did you exactly do? Do you have patch on top?
Yes, I have my own patch on it...

> 
> > So I can add #ifdef for the
> > to_phys/to_virt, such as:
> > 
> > #ifdef __arm__
> > #define to_phys(x)                 (((paddr_t)(x)+physical_address_offset) 
> > & 0xffffffff)
> > #define to_virt(x)                 ((void *)(((x)-physical_address_offset) 
> > & 0xffffffff))
> > #ifdef __aarch64__
> > #define to_phys(x)                 (((paddr_t)(x)-physical_address_offset) 
> > & ADDR_MASK)
> > #define to_virt(x)                 ((void *)(((x)+physical_address_offset) 
> > & ADDR_MASK))
> > #endif
> > 
> > What about this solution?
> 
> That's a NACK from my side. There are strictly no reason to diverge on that
> between 32-bit and 64-bits. More that if you read my answer to the cover
> letter, I want to see some cohesion between the 2 ports.
> 
> This is totally against that idea.
okay, I will thint this again...

Thanks
Huang Shijie

_______________________________________________
Minios-devel mailing list
Minios-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/minios-devel