Hello Petr,
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:10:04 +0100
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.cz> wrote:
> > I don't know much about Xen, but I think this is just regression.
> > And I want to release v1.5.1 in this week, so I will fix this
> > regression with the patch below:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86.c b/arch/x86.c
> > index 7de0495..ef29e3c 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86.c
> > @@ -294,15 +294,6 @@ kvtop_xen_x86(unsigned long kvaddr)
> >
> > int get_xen_basic_info_x86(void)
> > {
> > - if (!info->xen_phys_start) {
> > - if (info->xen_crash_info_v < 2) {
> > - ERRMSG("Can't get Xen physical start
> > address.\n"
> > - "Please use the --xen_phys_start
> > option.");
> > - return FALSE;
> > - }
> > - info->xen_phys_start =
> > info->xen_crash_info.v2->xen_phys_start;
> > - }
> > -
> > if (SYMBOL(pgd_l2) == NOT_FOUND_SYMBOL &&
> > SYMBOL(pgd_l3) == NOT_FOUND_SYMBOL) {
> > ERRMSG("Can't get pgd.\n");
> >
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any objections.
>
> Hello Atsushi-san,
>
> I'm sorry for my late reaction. Yes, this piece should be removed.
> While there is a xen_phys_start variable in 32-bit Xen, it is always
> zero, so we shouldn't complain if we can't get it.
>
> Petr Tesarik
Thank you for your reply.
I will release v1.5.1 with the change above.
Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai
