From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Dom0 hypercall for adding and removing PCI devices Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:28:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <0122C7C995D32147B66BF4F440D301630167FEBA@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0122C7C995D32147B66BF4F440D301630167FEBA@pdsmsx415.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Han, Weidong" , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Cc: joshua.levasseur@netronome.com, "Li, Xin B" , "Jiang, Yunhong" , espen.skoglund@netronome.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 23/7/08 10:26, "Han, Weidong" wrote: >> So this would be one extra VT-d pagetable, for the whole system, >> which would be the fallback location for RMRR mappings for devices >> which are currently not assigned to any domain? Thus allowing >> firmware to successfully initiate DMA operations on those devices? >> Sounds sensible. >> > > Is it possible that idle_domain owns the RMRR VT-d page table? If that's a convenient place to stash it then why not? Either way, seems you're going to have it special-cased in the code as fallback owner for unassigned devices. It's possible that having it stashed in the idle domain will simply make the code more confusing. I'm not sure though. -- Keir