Hi Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> > >> This code is now becoming quite confusing to understanding. This loop is > >> meant to map the xenheap. If I follow your documentation, it would > mean > >> that only the reserved region should be mapped. > > > > Yes I think this is the same question that I raised in the scissors line of > > the > > commit message of this patch. > > Sorry I didn't notice the comment after the scissors line. This is the > same question :) > > > What I intend to do is still mapping the whole > > RAM because of the xenheap_* variables that you mentioned in... > > > >> > >> More confusingly, xenheap_* variables will cover the full RAM. > > > > ...here. But only adding the reserved region to the boot allocator so the > > reserved region can become the heap later on. I am wondering if we > > have a more clear way to do that, any suggestions? > > I think your code is correct. It only needs some renaming of the > existing variable (maybe to directmap_*?) to make clear the area is used > to access the RAM easily.
Thanks for the clarification. I checked the code and found the xenheap_* variables are: xenheap_virt_start, xenheap_virt_end, xenheap_mfn_start, xenheap_mfn_end, xenheap_base_pdx. For clarification, do we need to change all of them to directmap_*? A pure renaming should be easy (and I guess also safe), but maybe I am overthinking because arm32 also uses xenheap_virt_end, xenheap_mfn_start and xenheap_mfn_end. These variables refer to the real xenheap, I am not sure renaming these would reduce the readability for arm32. Kind regards, Henry > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
