Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64-phys-ma.patch

[Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Christian Limpach wrote:
> On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn't try to convert guest physical 
> > to machine physical.
>
> Are you sure that the test a few lines further down shouldn't use (a
> to be defined -- see i386) pte_val_ma to compare the currently
> installed pte with the to-be-installed one?  You might be comparing
> random values otherwise...
Sounds reasonable. I tested that this incremental patch doesn't cause 
any new regressions.
        -Arun

===== linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 1.7 vs edited =====
--- 1.7/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c       2005-05-12 
10:17:01 -07:00
+++ edited/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c    2005-05-12 
14:32:18 -07:00
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@
        pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, vaddr);
 
        if (!pte_none(*pte) &&
-           pte_val(*pte) != (pte_val(new_pte) & __supported_pte_mask))
+           pte_val_ma(*pte) != (pte_val_ma(new_pte) & __supported_pte_mask))
                pte_ERROR(*pte);
 
         /* 
===== linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/include/asm-xen/asm-x86_64/page.h 1.2 vs edited 
=====
--- 1.2/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/include/asm-xen/asm-x86_64/page.h       
2005-04-02 12:27:09 -08:00
+++ edited/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/include/asm-xen/asm-x86_64/page.h    
2005-05-12 14:26:58 -07:00
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@
 
 #define pte_val(x)     (((x).pte & 1) ? machine_to_phys((x).pte) : \
                         (x).pte)
+#define pte_val_ma(x)  ((x).pte)
 
 static inline unsigned long pmd_val(pmd_t x)
 {

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel