>>> On 10.09.15 at 10:55, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
>>  Sort of (the patch has the intended effect, but for its size very
>> many rough edges).
>>
> 
> I guess we need to amend the original parameter, once_mapping_mfns, like 
> this,
> 
> /* xen_once_mapping_mfns: memory mapping mfn bumbers once. */
> unsigned int xen_once_mapping_mfns;
> size_param("once_mapping_mfns", xen_once_mapping_mfns);
> 
> static void xen_once_mapping_mfns_setup(void)
> {
>      if ( once_mapping_mfns < 64 )
>          xen_once_mapping_mfns = 64;
>      else if ( once_mapping_mfns > 1024 )
>          xen_once_mapping_mfns = 1024;
>      else
>          xen_once_mapping_mfns = once_mapping_mfns;
> }

Right, that's one of the things that would need taking care of.
(Whether enforcing an upper limit is actually needed I'm not
sure - we generally allow the admin to shoot himself in the foot
if he wants to. And whether the lower limit should be 64 instead
of just ensuring the limit is not zero is another question.)

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Reply via email to