From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v6][PATCH 2/2] xen:vtd: missing RMRR mapping while share EPT Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:59:58 +0800 Message-ID: <53E35C2E.1000308@intel.com> References: <1406684186-12788-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1406684186-12788-2-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <53D8CAC402000078000278E9@mail.emea.novell.com> <53D8B408.1010409@intel.com> <53D8D5A0020000780002792A@mail.emea.novell.com> <53D8BD70.7040905@intel.com> <53D8E4370200007800027986@mail.emea.novell.com> <53D8CB80.1000606@intel.com> <53D8E95A02000078000279BD@mail.emea.novell.com> <53DA103B.4000308@intel.com> <53DB552C020000780002846D@mail.emea.novell.com> <53DB3D57.5010107@intel.com> <53DB5C3002000078000284A4@mail.emea.novell.com> <53DB62EA.4090502@intel.com> <53DBB691020000780002875B@mail.emea.novell.com> <53DDED01.7000607@intel.com> <53DF53070200007800028CF1@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53DF53070200007800028CF1@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: yang.z.zhang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2014/8/4 15:31, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.08.14 at 10:04, wrote: >> On 2014/8/1 21:47, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> I'm not sure - this may be an additional piece to be done for >>> consistency (if the domain builder doesn't already call this), but >>> since hvmloader doesn't appear to call XENMEM_memory_map it >>> won't do on its own I'm afraid. >>> >> >> Yes, current hvmloader can't do this on its own. >> >> But in PV case, e820_host, seems be a refereed way to our goal. Even we >> may reuse some codes here so its a convenient approach. > > Only for those PV guests that actually care about e820_host. Non- > pvops Linux, for example, doesn't, but also has no problem with > the RMRR ranges overlapping with RAM due to the fully separated > M and P address spaces. The only issue here would be the risk of > assigning MMIO overlapping with them. I will send a preliminary patches to cover this as RFC, please take a look at if this is good. Thanks Tiejun > >> Additionally, I want to know if patch v6 is fine to be acked. > > My position hasn't changed: I view this as correct but incomplete, > and hence not ready for inclusion. With - iirc - Tim being of a > different opinion, if you want to push for a decision without > supplying the missing pieces, see the section "Conflict Resolution" > on http://www.xenproject.org/governance.html. But of course > I'd much prefer to avoid having to fall back to this, and instead > have a complete patch set to commit within reasonable time. > > Jan > > >