On 18.12.2025 16:17, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> --- a/tools/libs/guest/xg_dom_x86.c
> +++ b/tools/libs/guest/xg_dom_x86.c
> @@ -1260,14 +1260,15 @@ static int meminit_pv(struct xc_dom_image *dom)
> /* allocate guest memory */
> for ( i = 0; i < nr_vmemranges; i++ )
> {
> - unsigned int memflags;
> + unsigned int memflags = dom->memflags;
> uint64_t pages, super_pages;
> unsigned int pnode = vnode_to_pnode[vmemranges[i].nid];
> xen_pfn_t extents[SUPERPAGE_BATCH_SIZE];
> xen_pfn_t pfn_base_idx;
>
> - memflags = 0;
> - if ( pnode != XC_NUMA_NO_NODE )
> + if ( pnode != XC_NUMA_NO_NODE &&
> + /* Only set the node if the caller hasn't done so. */
> + XENMEMF_get_node(memflags) == 0xFFU )
> memflags |= XENMEMF_exact_node(pnode);
I'd like to suggest to avoid open-coding the 0xff here and elsewhere.
XENMEMF_get_node(0) will be less fragile overall, imo.
Jan
