[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100709042421.GB2951@verge.net.au>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:24:21 +0900
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, macro@...ux-mips.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, eike-kernel@...tec.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:35:19AM +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 06/17/2010 07:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
[snip]
> >> greater value when 44-bits physical address limit is eliminated. And
> >> maybe we need to change phys_addr_valid() returns error if physical
> >> address is above (1 << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT)?
> >>
> > The real question is how much we can fix without an unreasonable cost.
> >
>
> I think it would be a pretty large change. From the Xen's perspective,
> any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be
> capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern.
Hi Jeremy,
Is the implication of that statement that HVM is preferred where
supported by HW?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists