Hi Eric,Ah, finally got it!
_vm->sbm.first_mb_id == 0^ that's precisely what I meant.
You're right! That clears my doubt why this "issue" can live so long there... util I see it.
How could it *ever* be safe on x86-64 to let a virtio-mem device start
on physical address 0, eventually overlapping essentially all DMA, the
BIOS and the PCI hole.
Thus my question: Is this a "fix" for x86-64 or is this a "prepare for"
for !x86-64 (e.g., arm64).
If it's a fix, we want proper "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags. But I
assume this is much rather a preparation for another architecture than
x86-64.
Thanks!