On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:35:19AM +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 06/17/2010 07:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: [snip] > >> greater value when 44-bits physical address limit is eliminated. And > >> maybe we need to change phys_addr_valid() returns error if physical > >> address is above (1 << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT)? > >> > > The real question is how much we can fix without an unreasonable cost. > > > > I think it would be a pretty large change. From the Xen's perspective, > any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be > capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern. Hi Jeremy, Is the implication of that statement that HVM is preferred where supported by HW? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
