From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: RE: [BUNDLE] Testing a simpler inter-domain transport Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:55:47 +1100 Message-ID: <1139367347.11984.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD5980D5E@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD5980D5E@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" Cc: Rusty Russell , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 17:31 -0800, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote: > > On ia64 and I believe also on PPC, a guest can translate > from virtual to (pseudo)physical but only on x86 can > a guest translate from virtual to machine -- at least > without an extra hypercall. On all three, > Xen can translate from (pseudo)physical to machine but > only on x86 can Xen translate from virtual to > (pseudo)physical. Yup. > So it seems to me that if you "prefer to keep all archs the > same", the proper way to pass the parameters are as > (pseudo)physical addresses: the guest translates the > virtual address to a (pseudo)physical address and > Xen translates from the (pseudo)physical address to > the machine address and everybody is happy. Agreed. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center