From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: tools: any user of xc_dom_image->allocate? Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:25:58 +0100 Message-ID: <55F2D666.1050309@citrix.com> References: <55F281D5.2000609@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55F281D5.2000609@suse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Juergen Gross , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , "Ian.Campbell@citrix.com" , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/09/15 08:25, Juergen Gross wrote: > While testing xen tools patches to start a pv-domU >512GB I stumbled > over a problem in the domain builder: it is keeping track of the last > allocated virtual address in the memory image it is creating. For > very huge domains (>1TB) this virtual address will wrap around as it is > starting at -2GB and the p2m for such a domain is >2GB. > > With a modern pvops kernel (4.3) this would be no problem, as it is > supporting mapping the p2m to an arbitrary address. > > In the domain builder, however, I can't currently just ignore the wrap, > as after each memory allocation for the domain image dom->allocate() is > being called with the last allocated virtual address as an argument. > dom->allocate() is allowed to be NULL (in which case it isn't called). > > I have found no user of dom->allocate(), deleting it from the struct > xc_dom_image and removing the call sites in xc_dom_core.c didn't break > the build. > > Are there any objections to remove the allocate() function in struct > xc_dom_image? If there are no in-tree users, and no known out-of-tree users, good riddance to it. ~Andrew