Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling

[Simon Horman]

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?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/