From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH 4 of 5] libxl: Add support for passing in the machine's E820 for PCI passthrough Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:35:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20110408133557.GF6189@dumpdata.com> References: <2e464234c94cfd29a98a.1302207925@localhost6.localdomain6> <1302251805.27835.61.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <19870.59892.971964.403290@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19870.59892.971964.403290@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell , "keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 11:56:52AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 5] libxl: Add support for passing in the machine's E820 for PCI passthrough"): > > Are we expecting that libxl users might want to modify the e820? If not > > then why expose libxl_e820_alloc and libxl_e820_sanitize at all, just > > add a flag to the libxl interface which says whether or not to provide a > > host-derived e820. > > Well, also, why do we need that flag at all ? Are we trying to do > something different with domains which might get pci passthrough ? If Yes. Well, it does work OK even if you are _not_ doing PCI passthrough. But the main users for this are the ones doing PCI passthrough. > so then that's what should be specified at the libxl api, surely, > rather than some opaque "write this rune to make it work" option. OK. If I am understanding you guys right, you are saying, latch it of the 'pci' option instead of this 'pci_hole' option. And do not expose thse libxl_e820_* functions, but keep them internal to the libxl code.