From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:52:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1437569542.12884.48.camel@citrix.com> References: <1437528607-19315-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1437528607-19315-2-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55AF8F9B0200007800093F69@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55AF8F9B0200007800093F69@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Tiejun Chen , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: Yang Z Zhang , Keir Fraser , Kevin Tian , Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 04:42 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > This is a prerequisite for punching holes into HVM and PVH guests' > P2M > to allow passing through devices that are associated with (on VT-d) > RMRRs. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen > Acked-by: Kevin Tian > --- > v12: Restore changes as much as possible to my original version, Looking through the older comments, it seems like there was a conclusion to have an XSM check here, which isn't present here? It looks like Tim and Ian's comments have been addressed (so far as they were agreed to at the time). WRT the comments Julien raised: at some point (early on) you said this was only intended to be used by the toolstack. In which case can it not be done in one of the unstable interfaces (e.g. sysctl I suppose is the obvious one)? If not then perhaps just adding a type field with only one option (PCI) would introduce sufficient extensibility? Ian.