Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:45:00 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] XEN/X86: Improve semantic support for x86_init.mapping.pagetable_reserve |
| |
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:24:00PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > Please stop referring to your opinion as if they are the only source > of truth. Actually here is a matter of comparing prices. We thought > accounting for different { start, end } was a viable option, you want > something simpler and as a x86-maintainer you enforce your opinion > over here. But this doesn't mean what the patch does is "wrong".
If you're adding code to x86 with no apparent reason, it is wrong, and it is not a matter of personal opinion. And to be very specific, I mean the hunk below.
If it doesn't fix any issue on x86 but is only for documentation, we don't want it.
In /arch/x86/xen/ you can stick whatever crap you want and whatever bullshit bingo you can come up with...
-- diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init.c b/arch/x86/mm/init.c index e0e6990..f4b750d 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init.c @@ -92,6 +92,10 @@ static void __init find_early_table_space(struct map_range *mr, unsigned long en void __init native_pagetable_reserve(u64 start, u64 end) { + if (start < PFN_PHYS(pgt_buf_start) || end > PFN_PHYS(pgt_buf_top)) + panic("Invalid address range: [%#llx-%#llx] should be a subset of [%#llx-%#llx]\n", + start, end, (u64)PFN_PHYS(pgt_buf_start), + (u64)PFN_PHYS(pgt_buf_top)); memblock_reserve(start, end - start); }
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
| |