Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] xen:x86: introduce a new hypercall to get RMRR mappings

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

On 2014/8/14 2:21, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Chen, Tiejun
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:40 PM
>>
>> On 2014/8/12 20:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 12.08.14 at 12:55, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014/8/8 23:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07.08.14 at 13:02, <tiejun.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Returns the RMRR memory map as it was when the domain
>>>>>> + * was started.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +#define XENMEM_RMRR_memory_map           26
>>>>>> +typedef struct e820map rmrr_e820_t;
>>>>>> +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(rmrr_e820_t);
>>>>>
>>>>> Again just as a general remark: What in the world does the "e820"
>>>>> in here mean?
>>>>
>>>> I will redefine a struct to represent this to avoid any confusion.
>>>
>>> And just to avoid another needless round: The term RMRR shouldn't
>>> be in the hypercall public interface definitions either. This needs to
>>> be properly abstracted.
>>>
>>
>> Without such a term RMRR I can't figure out what definition should be
>> better as you expect, I guess you already have a better case so please
>> share it to avoid further discussion.
>>
>
> XENMEM_reserved_memory_map
>

Okay, but I prefer to XENMEM_DEVICE_reserved_memory_map or 
XENMEM_PLATFORM_reserved_memory_map since RMRR seems to be dedicated to 
device or platform, right?

Anyway, I'm fine as well once Jan have no any objection to this.

Thanks
Tiejun