Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] xen/arm: Updates for extended regions support

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 07.10.21 23:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

Hi Stefano

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
> > On 07.10.21 23:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > > On 07.10.21 04:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Stefano
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> > > > > > From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a follow-up of
> > > > > > "b6fe410 xen/arm: Add handling of extended regions for Dom0"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add various in-code comments, update Xen hypervisor device tree
> > > > > > bindings text, change the log level for some prints and clarify
> > > > > > format specifier, reuse dt_for_each_range() to avoid open-coding
> > > > > > in find_memory_holes().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Thanks for the patch, it looks like you addressed all Julien's comments
> > > > > well.
> > > > I believe so)
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > @@ -1193,8 +1215,8 @@ static int __init make_hypervisor_node(struct
> > > > > > domain
> > > > > > *d,
> > > > > >             u64 start = ext_regions->bank[i].start;
> > > > > >             u64 size = ext_regions->bank[i].size;
> > > > > >     -        dt_dprintk("Extended region %d: %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > -                   i, start, start + size);
> > > > > > +        printk("Extended region %d: %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > > > > +               i, start, start + size);
> > > > > Also should be PRIpaddr
> > > > I thought I needed to change specifier only for variables of type
> > > > "paddr_t",
> > > > but here "u64".
> > > Sorry, you are right.
> > >
> > > I added my reviewed-by and made the small typo changes on commit.
> > Thanks! In case if you haven't committed the patch yet, let's please wait for
> > Julien (who asked for this follow-up) to review it.
> >
> > In any case, I will be able to do another follow-up if needed.
>   
> I committed it as I would like to squeeze as many runs out of OSSTest
> and Gitlab-CI as possible as we are getting closer and closer to the
> release. I am trying to avoid the last minute rush to commit 150 patches
> one day before code freeze :-)
>
> The more intermediate runs we get, the easier is to pinpoint (and fix)
> regressions.
I got it, thank you for the explanation.


> But also, this patch doesn't affect external interfances, it is just
> internal and mostly comments, so it is super-easy to do follow-ups.
Yes, agree.


--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko