From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 14/19] pvh: Use PV handlers for PIO
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:54:11 +0000
Message-ID: <52825D33.7040801@eu.citrix.com>
References: <1384181841-22739-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<1384181841-22739-15-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<52824A5802000078001026C8@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>) id 1VgHEI-0004TX-KQ
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:54:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52824A5802000078001026C8@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/12/2013 02:33 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 11.11.13 at 15:57, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -566,7 +581,10 @@ int hvm_domain_initialise(struct domain *d)
>>       d->arch.hvm_domain.io_handler->num_slot = 0;
>>
>>       if ( is_pvh_domain(d) )
>> +    {
>> +        register_portio_handler(d, 0, 0xffffffff, handle_pvh_io);
>
> Nice idea, but I'm afraid it'll need a little more than this long term
> (i.e. I'm fine for this to go is as is, with the second paragraph below
> address in some way): hvm_io_intercept() first tries
> dpci_ioport_intercept(), and without device model I think that's not
> correct. If indeed it isn't, a simple solution might be to just disallow
> the registration of translated I/O port ranges for PVH guests.
>
> The other thing here is the use of 0xffffffff: The parameter is a
> size one, not an end of range. And considering that we're talking
> about I/O ports, 0x10000 would seem to be the right value (or,
> if taking the potential wrapping into account, 0x10003).

Oh, right -- I was looking at a trace of the guest, but confusing the 
values written with the address.  Do you just want to change it to 
0x10000? (Or 0x10003?)

  -George