From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ed White Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/12] x86/altp2m: add remaining support routines. Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:06:45 -0700 Message-ID: <558AF1B5.4000801@intel.com> References: <1434999372-3688-1-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com> <1434999372-3688-10-git-send-email-edmund.h.white@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Lengyel, Tamas" Cc: Ravi Sahita , Wei Liu , Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan , Xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper , Daniel De Graaf List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/24/2015 09:15 AM, Lengyel, Tamas wrote: >> +bool_t p2m_set_altp2m_mem_access(struct domain *d, uint16_t idx, >> + unsigned long pfn, xenmem_access_t >> access) >> +{ >> > > This function IMHO should be merged with p2m_set_mem_access and should be > triggerable with the same memop (XENMEM_access_op) hypercall instead of > introducing a new hvmop one. I think we should vote on this. My view is that it makes XENMEM_access_op too complicated to use. It also makes using this one specific altp2m capability different to using any of the others -- especially if we adopt Andrew's suggestion and make all the altp2m ops subops. Ed