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 14:19:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1437571179.12884.55.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> <1437569542.12884.48.camel@citrix.com> <55AFB36502000078000940DC@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: <55AFB36502000078000940DC@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 Cc: Kevin Tian , Keir Fraser , Tim Deegan , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Yang Z Zhang , Tiejun Chen List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 07:14 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > On 22.07.15 at 14:52, wrote: > > Looking through the older comments, it seems like there was a > > conclusion to have an XSM check here, which isn't present here? > > Hmm, did I lose track of such a request? You asked Daniel in <548584C9020000780004DAB2@mail.emea.novell.com> and there was a short thread until you said "Right, in that case we definitely would need a check." in <5485E5DB020000780004DE0B@mail.emea.novell.com>. That was from "[v8][PATCH 03/17] introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map". > > 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)? > > Oh, indeed. There was so much back and forth here - I thought > hvmloader is to use this interface (and it was doing so at some > point), but that's not the case. So yes, we don't really need to > guarantee stability (but we'd need to move the definitions into > a suitable block then). Ah, I hadn't realised that some of XENMEM was tools only. Yes this should certainly be moved in there. > Still I think the altered layout with the > union at the end is preferable (if only to reduce churn). Agreed. Ian.