This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.

To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.
From: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:52:13 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:03:44 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcYtlWQCbhzCiILXQtCIXhvW32venwAAm8uw
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 09 February 2006 16:31
> To: Petersson, Mats
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.
> On 9 Feb 2006, at 16:16, Petersson, Mats wrote:
> >> That debug code is totally ancient. Ian may know whether 
> it has any 
> >> relevance any more.
> >
> > Thanks Keir.
> >
> > I #if 0'd out the test and it flies through the rest of the stuff 
> > until the point where it got without debug. But I don't think the 
> > checking code was added purely because it seemed fun to add in the 
> > first place, so I'm still a bit concerned that it may actually be 
> > pointing at something that causes a problem... Is it really 
> safe to remove it?
> Mats,
> I think that the correct thing to do is to remove that whole 
> middle portion of __shadow_status(). That is, the entire 
> outermost 'if' 
> statement. (That is, the 'if ( VALID_MFN()....' all the way 
> to 'return 0; }').
> Can you please try that out and see how it works for you?

I've done that [I did it first using a #if 0, but I've now hit the
"delete" key for it...] - Patch attached. 

I don't know if I need to add this for removing existing lines of code:
Signed off by: Mats Petersson  mats.petersson@xxxxxxx

> I actually think there is another problem here. 
> PGT_fl1_shadow shadow pages are looked up by the first guest 
> pfn in that superpage extent, but that first guest pfn may 
> itself be a pagetable page, and no pfn can currently have 
> more than one 'shadow status'. That needs more investigation though...
>   -- Keir

Attachment: shadow.h.patch
Description: shadow.h.patch

Xen-devel mailing list