[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] linux-user: deal with address wrap for ARM_COMMPAGE o
From: |
Richard Henderson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] linux-user: deal with address wrap for ARM_COMMPAGE on 32 bit |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:28:47 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 |
On 5/27/20 3:05 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> @@ -2145,7 +2145,7 @@ static uintptr_t pgd_find_hole_fallback(uintptr_t
> guest_size, uintptr_t brk, lon
>
> /* Return value for guest_base, or -1 if no hole found. */
> static uintptr_t pgb_find_hole(uintptr_t guest_loaddr, uintptr_t guest_size,
> - long align)
> + long align, uintptr_t offset)
> {
> GSList *maps, *iter;
> uintptr_t this_start, this_end, next_start, brk;
> @@ -2171,7 +2171,7 @@ static uintptr_t pgb_find_hole(uintptr_t guest_loaddr,
> uintptr_t guest_size,
>
> this_end = ((MapInfo *)iter->data)->start;
> next_start = ((MapInfo *)iter->data)->end;
> - align_start = ROUND_UP(this_start, align);
> + align_start = ROUND_UP(this_start + offset, align);
>
> /* Skip holes that are too small. */
I suppose offset is supposed to mean we start from -offset? You didn't update
pgb_find_hole_fallback.
> - loaddr = ARM_COMMPAGE & -align;
> + offset = (128 * KiB);
Why 128K? Surely this should be an expression against ARM_COMMPAGE.
r~
- Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] linux-user: deal with address wrap for ARM_COMMPAGE on 32 bit,
Richard Henderson <=