On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 04:46:37PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 19/12/17 16:38, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:14:07PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > >> Instead of locating the RSDP table below 1MB put it just below 4GB > >> like the rest of the ACPI tables in case of PVH guests. This will > >> avoid punching more holes than necessary into the memory map. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com> > >> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > >> --- > >> tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c | 2 +- > >> tools/libxl/libxl_x86_acpi.c | 5 ++--- > >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > >> b/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > >> index 59f94e51e5..3f0bd65547 100644 > >> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > >> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_dom_hvmloader.c > >> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static int module_init_one(struct xc_dom_image *dom, > >> struct xc_dom_seg seg; > >> void *dest; > >> > >> - if ( module->length ) > >> + if ( module->length && !module->guest_addr_out ) > > > > Isn't that kind of a separate fix? AFAICT this just prevents > > allocating memory if guest_addr_out is already set to a fixed > > position. > > No, this is mandatory, as I have to skip the allocation for PVH, while > HVM guests really want the allocation to take place.
Was this also a problem before? Other ACPI modules also set guest_addr_out, and previously they would also get memory allocated. Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel