Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen: arm: rework dom0 initrd and dtb placement

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

On 04/09/2014 12:51 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> This now uses the same decision tree as libxc (which is much easier to test).
> 
> The main change is to explictly handle the placement at 128MB or end of RAM as

s/explictly/explicitly/

> two cases, rather than combining with MIN. The effect is the same but the code
> is clearer.
> 
> Secondly the attempt to place the mopules right after the kernel is removed,

s/mopules/modules/

> since it is redundant with the case where placing them at the end of RAM ends
> up abutting the kernel.
> 
> Also round the kernel size up to a 2MB boundary.

A bit surprised that it was not done before :).

> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I'm sure to regret playing with this yet again...
> ---
>  xen/arch/arm/kernel.c |   22 ++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c b/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c
> index bc625a4..1102392 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void place_modules(struct kernel_info *info,
>      const paddr_t rambase = info->mem.bank[0].start;
>      const paddr_t ramsize = info->mem.bank[0].size;
>      const paddr_t ramend = rambase + ramsize;
> -    const paddr_t kernsize = kernend - kernbase;
> +    const paddr_t kernsize = ROUNDUP(kernend, MB(2)) - kernbase;

You are using ROUNDUP(kernend, MB(2)) in few places, why didn't you
roundup directly kernend?

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel