Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 10/11] xen: add new Xen cpuid node for max address width info

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.09.17 at 11:52, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/09/17 11:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 28.09.17 at 11:04, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 28/09/17 10:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.09.17 at 12:00, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>>>>> @@ -930,6 +930,13 @@ void cpuid_hypervisor_leaves(const struct vcpu *v, 
> uint32_t leaf,
>>>>>          res->b = v->vcpu_id;
>>>>>          break;
>>>>>  
>>>>> +    case 5: /* PV-specific parameters */
>>>>> +        if ( is_hvm_domain(d) || subleaf != 0 )
>>>>> +            break;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        res->a = generic_flsl(get_upper_mfn_bound()) + PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>
>>>> While preparing to commit this I wondered why this isn't just
>>>> flsl(). Can you explain this, or can I just change it?
>>>
>>> It is meant to be similar to CPUID leaf 0x80000008: the width of the
>>> max. machine address, not that of the max. MFN.
>> 
>> I don't see how this addresses the question: Just to repeat with
>> slightly different wording - why are you using generic_flsl() instead
>> of just flsl()?
> 
> Oh, sorry, just got the question wrong.
> 
> No specific reason for generic_flsl().
> 
> I'm just about to send the last 3 patches as a V11, so no need for you
> to modify the patch.

Resend just the single patch Julien wanted some changes in;
I'll commit the other two meanwhile (as they're independent of
the one being changed afaict).

Jan


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