Hey everyone, We're having problems with large systems hitting a BUG in xen_memory_setup, due to extra e820 entries created in the XENMEM_machine_memory_map callback. The change in the patch gets things working, but Boris and I wanted to get opinions on whether or not this is the appropriate/entire solution, which is why I've sent it as an RFC for now.
Boris pointed out to me that E820_X_MAX is only large when CONFIG_EFI=y, which is a detail worth discussig. He proposed possibly adding CONFIG_XEN to the conditions under which we set E820_X_MAX to a larger value than E820MAX, since the Xen e820 table isn't bound by the zero-page memory limitations. I do *slightly* question the use of E820_X_MAX here, only from a cosmetic prospective, as I believe this macro is intended to describe the maximum size of the extended e820 table, which, AFAIK, is not used by the Xen HV. That being said, there isn't exactly a "more appropriate" macro/variable to use, so this may not really be an issue. Any input on the patch, or the questions I've raised above is greatly appreciated! - Alex Alex Thorlton (1): xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible entries arch/x86/xen/setup.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 1.8.5.6
