Re: [v3][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2015/6/11 16:42, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:28 PM
>>
>>>>> On 11.06.15 at 03:15, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>> v3:
>>>
>>> * Rearrange all patches orderly as Wei suggested
>>> * Rebase on the latest tree
>>> * Address some Wei's comments on tools side
>>> * Two changes for runtime cycle
>>>     patch #2,xen/x86/p2m: introduce set_identity_p2m_entry, on hypervisor
>>> side
>>>
>>>    a>. Introduce paging_mode_translate()
>>>    Otherwise, we'll see this error when boot Xen/Dom0
>>>
>>> (XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
>>> (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable  x86_64  debug=y  Tainted:    C ]----
>>> ....
>>> (XEN) Xen call trace:
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d0801f53db>] p2m_pt_get_entry+0x29/0x558
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d0801f0b5c>] set_identity_p2m_entry+0xfc/0x1f0
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d08014ebc8>] rmrr_identity_mapping+0x154/0x1ce
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802abb46>] intel_iommu_hwdom_init+0x76/0x158
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802ab169>] iommu_hwdom_init+0x179/0x188
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802cc608>] construct_dom0+0x2fed/0x35d8
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802bdaa0>] __start_xen+0x22d8/0x2381
>>> (XEN)    [<ffff82d080100067>] __high_start+0x53/0x55
>>> (XEN)
>>> (XEN)
>>> (XEN) ****************************************
>>> (XEN) Panic on CPU 0:
>>> (XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
>>>
>>> Note I don't copy all info since I think the above is enough.
>>>
>>>    b>. Actually we still need to use "mfn_x(mfn) == INVALID_MFN" to confirm
>>>    we're getting an invalid mfn.
>>>
>>> * Add patch #16 to handle those devices which share same RMRR.
>>
>> Summarizing the changed in the overview mail is fine, but the primary
>> place for them to live to help reviewing should be in the patches
>> themselves, after a first --- marker. This is especially so for as
>> extensive an explanation as you give for patch 2 here (but I'll reply
>> to that in the context of that patch).
>>
>
> Agree. Tiejun could you add per-patch version history and resend a
> new version with right maintainers CCed?
>

Yes, I should do this as Jan mentioned but I'd like to do this next.

Because to compare v2, I didn't introduce any changes on hypervisor 
side, except for these twos listed here. Others focus on refactoring 
codes on tools side. But indeed, I still should comment this per patch 
as you guys said.

So next, I will do

#1. Make sure send per patch to its associated maintainers
#2. Includes revision history to each patch

Thanks
Tiejun