[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D112A4B.5000503@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:29:31 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] xen/mmu: For 1-1 mapping, automatically set _PAGE_IOMAP.
On 12/21/2010 01:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> This means that for PFNs (specifically: those in any E820 gaps
> or non-RAM E820 regions) that have 1-1 mapping we set the
> _PAGE_IOMAP flag.
>
> Later on we could remove the _PAGE_IOMAP code handling, but
> for right now lets keep this in to not introduce any bisection
> failures across this patchset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/mmu.c | 3 +++
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
> index 4ba7e4e..bd02e7d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/mmu.c
> @@ -832,6 +832,9 @@ static pteval_t pte_pfn_to_mfn(pteval_t val)
> pteval_t flags = val & PTE_FLAGS_MASK;
> unsigned long mfn = pfn_to_mfn(pfn);
>
> + if (mfn == pfn)
> + flags |= _PAGE_IOMAP;
Why? Does it really make sense to set _PAGE_IOMAP if they just happen
to be the same value?
J
--
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