From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xen: support RAM at addresses 0 and 4096
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:28:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CE584503.5DCD6%keir.xen@gmail.com>
References: <1379071244.19256.34.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <keir.xen@gmail.com>) id 1VKRYd-0004HY-ML
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:29:03 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id g10so1124682pdj.26
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1379071244.19256.34.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, julien.grall@linaro.org, tim@xen.org, andre.przywara@linaro.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 13/09/2013 04:20, "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:

> Actually, if I don't make a mess of my arithmetic then I don't think
> this is needed, at least not for correctness.
> 
> page_to_zone() is still wrong for page 0, but that was true with the
> previous version too, hence the checks to avoid adding page 0 to any
> heap.
> 
> The difference is that it now ends up in zone 0 (Xen, bad) instead of
> zone -1 (even worse!). Even that could be solved with this extra hunk
> (which would mean we could drop all the checks in init_*_pages from
> below too):
> 
> @@ -268,7 +267,7 @@ unsigned long __init alloc_boot_pages(
>  
>  #define bits_to_zone(b) (((b) < (PAGE_SHIFT + 1)) ? 1 : ((b) - PAGE_SHIFT))
>  #define page_to_zone(pg) (is_xen_heap_page(pg) ? MEMZONE_XEN :  \
> -                          (fls(page_to_mfn(pg))))
> +                          (fls(page_to_mfn(pg)) ? : 1))
>  
>  typedef struct page_list_head
> heap_by_zone_and_order_t[NR_ZONES][MAX_ORDER+1];
>  static heap_by_zone_and_order_t *_heap[MAX_NUMNODES];
> 
> What do you think?

Yeah, looks good!

 -- Keir