Re: [PATCH] xen/SandyBridge: reserve pages when integrated graphics

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:00:48AM +0000, Hao, Xudong wrote:
> Include page 0x20110000, the five pages are in spec and I have confirmed.

Could you also include the name of the spec and an URL (if there is one)
for it. That way in the future if there are some lingering questions
one can just reference the spec.

>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hao, Xudong
> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:37 PM
> > To: Jan Beulich
> > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; keir@xen.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] xen/SandyBridge: reserve pages when integrated graphics
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:07 PM
> > > To: Hao, Xudong
> > > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; keir@xen.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] xen/SandyBridge: reserve pages when integrated
> > graphics
> > >
> > > >>> On 25.03.13 at 13:39, "Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
> > > >> - removal of page 0x20110
> > > >
> > > > Linux kernel has put page 0x20110000 as bad, so we do not need to remove
> > it
> > > > from bad page list.
> > > > Linux commit: a9acc5365dbda29f7be2884efb63771dc24bd815
> > >
> > > So then your earlier response was misleading, or at least confusing
> > > me:
> > >
> > > "I did not get detail spec either, but linux kernel has remove this page
> > >  0x20110000 already for the same reason, refer to commit:
> > >  a9acc5365dbda29f7be2884efb63771dc24bd815".
> > >
> > > "Removed" to me meant removed from the list of bad PFNs. Note
> > > that I didn't look at the commit, I just took your response as
> > > confirming that this particular PFN got added to the list in error.
> > 
> > Sorry to confuse you, the earlier response really a little misleading. Actually I
> > want to say this page is inaccessible for SandyBridge graphic device.
> > 
> > > Now that you say that you actually meant the exact opposite,
> > > we're back at the question why that PFN is in the list in the first
> > > place, considering that none of the spec updates say so.
> > >
> > Let me try to find out the description on spec.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>