Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:24:21 +0900 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling |
| |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:35:19AM +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 06/17/2010 07:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
[snip]
> >> greater value when 44-bits physical address limit is eliminated. And > >> maybe we need to change phys_addr_valid() returns error if physical > >> address is above (1 << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT)? > >> > > The real question is how much we can fix without an unreasonable cost. > > > > I think it would be a pretty large change. From the Xen's perspective, > any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be > capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern.
Hi Jeremy,
Is the implication of that statement that HVM is preferred where supported by HW?
| |