On 26.08.2022 20:01, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:53:29AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.08.2022 23:52, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>>> @@ -40,6 +41,38 @@
>>>
>>> #define efi_data(op) (op.u.efi_runtime_call)
>>>
>>> +static_assert(XEN_PAGE_SHIFT == EFI_PAGE_SHIFT,
>>> + "Mismatch between EFI_PAGE_SHIFT and XEN_PAGE_SHIFT");
>>> +
>>> +bool xen_efi_mem_desc_lookup(u64 phys_addr, efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>>> +{
>>> + struct xen_platform_op op = {
>>> + .cmd = XENPF_firmware_info,
>>> + .u.firmware_info = {
>>> + .type = XEN_FW_EFI_INFO,
>>> + .index = XEN_FW_EFI_MEM_INFO,
>>> + .u.efi_info.mem.addr = phys_addr,
>>> + .u.efi_info.mem.size = ((u64)-1ULL) - phys_addr,
>>> + }
>>> + };
>>> + union xenpf_efi_info *info = &op.u.firmware_info.u.efi_info;
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + memset(md, 0, sizeof(*md)); /* initialize md even on failure */
>>> + rc = HYPERVISOR_platform_op(&op);
>>> + if (rc) {
>>> + pr_warn("Could not obtain information on address %llu from Xen: "
>>> + "error %d\n", phys_addr, rc);
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + md->attribute = info->mem.attr;
>>> + md->type = info->mem.type;
>>> + md->num_pages = info->mem.size >> XEN_PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> + md->phys_addr = info->mem.addr;
>>
>> As indicated in reply to your patch changing XEN_FW_EFI_MEM_INFO in
>> the hypervisor: While this may fit the ESRT purpose, the address you
>> return here is not necessarily the start of the region, and hence
>> this function is not a general Xen replacement for the non-Xen
>> function. Therefore I think it also shouldn't give the impression of
>> doing so.
>
> Is this just a matter of renaming the function?
Besides renaming the function perhaps it also shouldn't give the
impression of being generally usable. I would expect it to be a static
helper somewhere, or even be expanded inline.
> Is it possible to
> implement the original function with the current hypervisor?
Yes, but doing so would be ugly: You'd need to "bisect" your way to
the start of the region.
As an aside (I think I did point this out before): Can you please
adjust the way your mail program sends mails? When I respond to your
mail (using Thunderbird), I find all the people previously on Cc on
the To: list, while your address is lost. As indicated I believe
this is a result of the Mail-Followup-To: tag your reply came with
(and I further think that TB's treatment of that tag is a reasonable
one, albeit perhaps there are other reasonable treatments as well; I
am not aware of this tag having any formally specified treatment).
Jan
