Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 1/5] efi: Introduce EFI_DIRECT flag

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.05.14 at 22:41, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -457,6 +460,21 @@ void __init efi_free_boot_services(void)
> >     efi_unmap_memmap();
> >  }
> >
> > +static void __init __iomem *efi_early_ioremap(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> > +                                                   unsigned long size)
> > +{
> > +   if (efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT))
> > +           return early_ioremap(phys_addr, size);
> > +
> > +   return (__force void __iomem *)phys_addr;
>
> Now that surely needs some explanation: I can't see how this can
> ever be correct, Xen or not being completely irrelevant.

I hope that efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT) is obvious. However, in case of
!efi_enabled(EFI_DIRECT) some structures are created artificially
and they live in virtual address space. So that is why they should
not be mapped. If you wish I could add relevant comment here.

Daniel

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