From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Dom0 Kernel - Fixes for saving/restoringMSI/MSI-X across Dom0 S3 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:41:20 +0000 Message-ID: <492AA0F0.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <61563CE63B4F854986A895DA7AD3C17701FC57FF@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <61563CE63B4F854986A895DA7AD3C17701FC57FF@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Haitao Shan Cc: "'xen-devel@lists.xensource.com'" , 'Keir Fraser' List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> "Shan, Haitao" 24.11.08 12:03 >>> >With this patch, MSI/MSI-X capabilities and tables are saved in Dom0 when >S3 and restored when resume. Actually, this is also the approach that >kernel takes. The only concern is that Dom0 should not touch MSI/MSI-X, >they are owned by VMM itself. Maybe adding a hypercall to instruct Xen to >do the saving/restoring is good. I wonder whether the reason is strong >enough for adding a hypercall for such purpose. Is it at all necessary to use a hypercall here? Shouldn't Xen itself be = able to do the necessary saving/restoring (just like it does for IO-APIC)? Jan