[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54087CE3.6020400@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 15:53:23 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC: Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: eliminate scalability issues from
initrd handling
On 04/09/14 15:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 04.09.14 at 14:52, <david.vrabel@...rix.com> wrote:
>> On 04/09/14 13:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-head.S
>>> @@ -124,6 +124,9 @@ NEXT_HYPERCALL(arch_6)
>>> ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_L1_MFN_VALID,
>>> .quad _PAGE_PRESENT; .quad _PAGE_PRESENT)
>>> ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_SUSPEND_CANCEL, .long 1)
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>> + ELFNOTE(Xen, XEN_ELFNOTE_MOD_START_PFN, .long 1)
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Why X86_64 only? If there's a good reason the commit message needs to
>> explain why.
>
> Does native 32-bit support huge initrd?
Does that matter? If the MOD_START_PFN options works with a 32-bit guest
then it should use it, regardless of whether it is essential or not.
Because this reduces the #ifdef'ery.
David
--
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