From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934155AbcKPGGi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:06:38 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56564 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750748AbcKPGGh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:06:37 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xen/x86: Increase xen_e820_map to E820_X_MAX possible
 entries
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
References: <1479168677-23633-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com>
 <a03b2e71-cc6a-7f62-6c09-877c576fab80@suse.com>
 <582AC427020000780011EA7E@suse.com>
 <a02052dd-83f8-2e6f-2dd3-e7165708225d@suse.com>
 <582ACEDE020000780011EAC9@suse.com>
 <478e5d05-ccf6-093e-8301-0eece00ca243@suse.com>
 <582AE72D020000780011EBB2@suse.com>
 <4bac3691-f157-4acc-7b29-7c49be6d35d6@suse.com>
 <20161115152209.GA67776@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Message-ID: <633e8146-d181-a599-498b-abae4af11687@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:06:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161115152209.GA67776@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 15/11/16 16:22, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> I'd go with the new error code. What about E2BIG or ENOSPC?
>>
>> I think the hypervisor should fill in the number of entries required
>> in this case.
>>
>> In case nobody objects I can post patches for this purpose (both Xen
>> and Linux).
> 
> This sounds like a good solution to me.  I think it's definitely more
> appropriate than simply bumping up the size of xen_e820_map, especially
> considering the fact that it's theoretically possible for the e820 map
> generated by the hypercall to grow too large, even on a non-EFI machine,
> where my change would have no effect.

Well, it won't help with the current hypervisor, so bumping up the size
of xen_e820_map will still be a good idea. I think using E820_X_MAX is
okay since in the end xen_e820_map will be transferred into a struct
e820map which can't hold more than E820_X_MAX entries (additional
entries are ignored here, so this won't let the boot fail).


Juergen