Hi, It is very helpful. Thanks Itsuro Oda On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:55:00 +0100 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/10/08 14:39, "Dave Anderson" <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The patch looks OK. But just for sanity's sake, is it guaranteed that > > the per_cpu data section will be greater than 4k on both architectures? > > Or could there be some combination of xen CONFIG options that could > > reduce the i386 per_cpu data section contents to less than 4K even though > > PERCPU_SHIFT is 13? > > PERCPU_SHIFT has only ever been 12 or 13 so far, and it's unlikely to ever > get smaller. Ongoing, we could help you out by defining some useful label in > our linker script. For example, __per_cpu_shift = PERCPU_SHIFT (or > '__per_cpu_start + PERCPU_SHIFT', as I'm not sure about creating labels > outside the virtual address ranges defined by the object file). > > -- Keir > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel -- Itsuro ODA <oda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
