From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched				 mprotect
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <48F8B0FF.3010005@goop.org>
References: <48F5CE10.3060403@redhat.com> <48F6274D.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
	<48F61919.2050005@goop.org> <48F72C7A.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
	<48F76773.2090700@goop.org> <48F85711.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
	<48F8ACF7.6050905@goop.org> <48F8CBC4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <48F8CBC4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Jan Beulich wrote:
> Is e.g. 256Mb tiny? KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE these days is 512Mb... Indeed,
> when it was 40Mb (up until a few releases ago), this indeed wouldn't
> matter.
>   

Well, the real point is that anyone doing a test on such high kernel 
addresses is almost certainly buggy anyway.  I guess a more precise 
statement is that it returns well-defined results for any va the calling 
code could reasonably be using, not for any random bit pattern.

But I think we're getting into the weeds here.

    J