[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54096E8A.6010904@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:04:26 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC: 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 09/04/2014 04:53 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> 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.
Okay, I'll verify it's working on 32-bit, too.
Juergen
--
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