From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Limpach Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64-phys-ma.patch Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:30:43 +0100 Message-ID: <3d8eece205051214305076efc5@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050512210714.GA29374@intel.com> Reply-To: Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050512210714.GA29374@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Arun Sharma Cc: Ian Pratt , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 5/12/05, Arun Sharma wrote: > phys is machine physical already. So we shouldn't try to convert guest ph= ysical to machine physical. Are you sure that the test a few lines further down shouldn't use (a to be defined -- see i386) pte_val_ma to compare the currently installed pte with the to-be-installed one? You might be comparing random values otherwise... christian >=20 > Signed-off-by: Arun Sharma >=20 > --- a/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:= 19 -07:00 > +++ b/linux-2.6.11-xen-sparse/arch/xen/x86_64/mm/init.c 2005-05-12 13:23:= 19 -07:00 > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ > } > } >=20 > - new_pte =3D pfn_pte(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot); > + new_pte =3D pfn_pte_ma(phys >> PAGE_SHIFT, prot); > pte =3D pte_offset_kernel(pmd, vaddr); >=20 > if (!pte_none(*pte) && >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >