From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:23:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20150119122334.GD17236@deinos.phlegethon.org> References: <54B68FA10200007800054F01@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B6B578.60106@eu.citrix.com> <54B78A5A02000078000552C2@mail.emea.novell.com> <54BCDD53020000780005645A@mail.emea.novell.com> <20150119113359.GB17236@deinos.phlegethon.org> <54BCFB8D0200007800056684@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54BCFB8D0200007800056684@mail.emea.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 , "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , "stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com" , George Dunlap , "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Yang Z Zhang , Tiejun Chen List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 11:41 +0000 on 19 Jan (1421664109), Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 19.01.15 at 12:33, wrote: > > FWIW, I don't like adding hypervisor state (and even more so > > hypervisor mechanism like a new hypercall) for things that the > > hypervisor doesn't need to know about. Since the e820 is only shared > > between the tools and the guest, I'd prefer it to go in either > > the hvm_info_table or xenstore. > > But we have the guest E820 in the hypervisor already, which we > also can't drop (as XENMEM_memory_map is a generally accessible > hypercall). So we do. :( What is the difference between that (with appropriate reserved regions in the map) and the proposed new hypercall? Tim.