From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: Clarifying PVH mode requirements Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:17:02 -0500 Message-ID: <56AFAF2E.50106@oracle.com> References: <56AE7C3B.7010100@gmail.com> <20160201095944.GA10990@citrix.com> <56AF4E52.30006@gmail.com> <56AF4F9F.1030607@citrix.com> <56AF51C8.6000601@gmail.com> <56AF5FC6.8050404@gmail.com> <56AF71AD.8010100@oracle.com> <56AF9C3502000078000CD238@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56AF9C3502000078000CD238@prv-mh.provo.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: xen-devel@lists.xen.org, PGNet Dev , wei.liu2@citrix.com, roger.pau@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/01/2016 11:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 01.02.16 at 15:54, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> This looks very much like it needs backport of 33c19df9a ("x86/PCI: >>>> intercept accesses to RO MMIO from dom0s in HVM containers") from >>>> unstable, which fixes PVH regression introduced by 9256f66c1606 >>>> ("x86/PCI: intercept all PV Dom0 MMCFG writes") > I don't really understand: The former was needed to fix an issue > introduced by the latter, but the latter isn't in 4.6 iirc. > I see it in 4.6, for example http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/stable-4.6;pg=2 and search for "intercept all PV Dom0 MMCFG writes". -boris