Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 26/03/2014 22:01, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:57:23PM +, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Mar, at 02:48:45PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: >>> On my machine this function crashes on Xen so that is why I have changed >>> condition. However, if you say that this issue could be sol

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:57:23PM +, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar, at 02:48:45PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > > On my machine this function crashes on Xen so that is why I have changed > > condition. However, if you say that this issue could be solved in > > another way I will investigat

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Matt Fleming
On Wed, 26 Mar, at 02:48:45PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On my machine this function crashes on Xen so that is why I have changed > condition. However, if you say that this issue could be solved in > another way I will investigate it further. Daniel, could you paste the crash? Do you get a stack tr

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:39:42PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 26.03.14 at 14:31, wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Mar, at 01:22:49PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 26.03.14 at 14:00, wrote: > >> > > >> > This could do with a little bit more explanation. Why is it not > >> > necessary to mark the EF

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 26.03.14 at 14:31, wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar, at 01:22:49PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 26.03.14 at 14:00, wrote: >> > >> > This could do with a little bit more explanation. Why is it not >> > necessary to mark the EFI memory map that was passed to the kernel as >> > reserved in memblock?

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Matt Fleming
On Wed, 26 Mar, at 01:22:49PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 26.03.14 at 14:00, wrote: > > > > This could do with a little bit more explanation. Why is it not > > necessary to mark the EFI memory map that was passed to the kernel as > > reserved in memblock? > > Because that's in memory Dom0 doesn

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 26.03.14 at 14:00, wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar, at 09:57:54PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: >> Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only. >> This is not needed and even it should not be called on platforms >> which wraps EFI infrastructure like Xen. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel K

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-26 Thread Matt Fleming
On Tue, 25 Mar, at 09:57:54PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only. > This is not needed and even it should not be called on platforms > which wraps EFI infrastructure like Xen. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper > --- > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |

[PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only

2014-03-25 Thread Daniel Kiper
Call efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range() on native EFI platform only. This is not needed and even it should not be called on platforms which wraps EFI infrastructure like Xen. Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper --- arch/x86/kernel/setup.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --gi