From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v7][RFC][PATCH 06/13] hvmloader/ram: check if guest memory is out of reserved device memory maps Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:31:20 +0800 Message-ID: <5469A448.40808@intel.com> References: <1414136077-18599-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <54574D8F.8060407@intel.com> <54575E2D0200007800044443@mail.emea.novell.com> <545767C4.7070806@intel.com> <5457787002000078000445C7@mail.emea.novell.com> <54576DF7.8060408@intel.com> <545784830200007800044627@mail.emea.novell.com> <54585EAA.20904@intel.com> <545894610200007800044A5B@mail.emea.novell.com> <545992A2.8070309@intel.com> <545A57AD02000078000C1037@mail.emea.novell.com> <545B3F4A.5070808@intel.com> <545B562F02000078000453FB@mail.emea.novell.com> <545C9E97.4040800@intel.com> <545CB64E02000078000459CD@mail.emea.novell.com> <5461AD94.2070008@intel.com> <5461BF97.1070709@intel.com> <5461DED50200007800046520@mail.emea.novell.com> <5461DFAF020000780004652B@mail.emea.novell.com> <5461DA23.6020105@intel.com> <5462CE68.6010709@intel.com> <54632EA80200007800046AE5@mail.emea.novell.com> <546420CE.1080908@intel.com> <5465671C.4070007@intel.com> <5465C99F0200007800047829@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5465C99F0200007800047829@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: yang.z.zhang@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2014/11/14 16:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 14.11.14 at 03:21, wrote: >> Even if eventually we'll reorder that sequence, this just change that >> approach to get BDF. Are you fine to this subsequent change? > > You again pass a struct domain pointer to the IOMMU-specific > function. I already told you not to do so - the domain specific I remembered this comment but I want to show this may introduce many duplicated codes. As I understand this kind of check should be a common thing dependent on one given platform. > aspect should be taken care of by the callback function, i.e. you > need to make SBDF available to it (just like you already properly > did in the previous round for BDF). I suppose that'll at once make > the ugly open coding of for_each_rmrr_device() unnecessary - > you can just use that construct as replacement for what right > now is list_for_each_entry(). > Okay, I will try to go there. Thanks Tiejun