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 18:16:35 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:28:14 +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: AcYtmrqpwYg23ul1QvWa54866WqN0wAAY22Q
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 17:06
> To: Petersson, Mats
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.
> On 9 Feb 2006, at 16:52, Petersson, Mats wrote:
> >> 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
> No, please try removing the if statement *as well*. That 
> whole conditional return of 0 should go away -- the only 
> return statement in that function should be the one on the 
> final final of the function. Let me know how that works out.

So this is an updated patch...  

I can't tell any difference - but then I'm not sure what type of cases
it's trying to catch... ;-)

>   -- Keir

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

Xen-devel mailing list