From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>,
Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
Cc: Kevin Stange <kevin@steadfast.net>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: PCI Device Subtree Change from Traditional to Upstream
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:46:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eefdc065-6557-a5a7-e0c5-f941ce6a6911@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b96b8dcec4944918a41c60ab63bdf841@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net>
On 1/26/18 10:38 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org] On Behalf
>> Of George Dunlap
>> Sent: 25 January 2018 18:15
>> To: Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>> Cc: Kevin Stange <kevin@steadfast.net>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org;
>> George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] PCI Device Subtree Change from Traditional to
>> Upstream
>>
>> On 01/25/2018 06:04 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 05:54:36PM +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2018 12:52 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>>> From: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] libxl_dm: Explicitly put xen-platform device on PCI slot
>> 3
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to do that, we don't use xenfv machine anymore and explicity
>>>>> add the platform device on the command line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>>>>
>>>> Anthony,
>>>>
>>>> It seems like we might want to add the ability to specify which slot we
>>>> want the xen-platform device to occupy. Is it worth thinking of the best
>>>> way to add a patch like this upstream?
>>>
>>> I think that would be nice for people who switch from qemu-trad to
>>> QEMU. The only question that remain is, how to name the xl config
>>> option? The rest is to simply take my libxl patch and make it use
>>> the new config option.
>>
>> Well the other half would be to make sure something like this doesn't
>> happen by accident in the future -- i.e., that no future changes in QEMU
>> will accidentally move it away from whatever the current slot is now.
>>
>
> IMO, it would be best if libxl specified the bus topology exactly (i.e. specified devfn for everything that appears on the bus). If we, as I hope, make a move to having Xen rather than QEMU own the topology then this should hopefully ensure at least some degree of forward compatibility.
Is this on anybody's radar? It seems like this wouldn't be a huge
amount of work, and it would prevent this sort of compatibility issue in
the future.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>,
Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
Cc: Kevin Stange <kevin@steadfast.net>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] PCI Device Subtree Change from Traditional to Upstream
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:46:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eefdc065-6557-a5a7-e0c5-f941ce6a6911@citrix.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190408094657._554VAjBT7kCUthnewOmJVFXb-mMwxRAKTHYgaCbQcE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b96b8dcec4944918a41c60ab63bdf841@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net>
On 1/26/18 10:38 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org] On Behalf
>> Of George Dunlap
>> Sent: 25 January 2018 18:15
>> To: Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>> Cc: Kevin Stange <kevin@steadfast.net>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org;
>> George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] PCI Device Subtree Change from Traditional to
>> Upstream
>>
>> On 01/25/2018 06:04 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 05:54:36PM +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2018 12:52 PM, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>>> From: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] libxl_dm: Explicitly put xen-platform device on PCI slot
>> 3
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to do that, we don't use xenfv machine anymore and explicity
>>>>> add the platform device on the command line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
>>>>
>>>> Anthony,
>>>>
>>>> It seems like we might want to add the ability to specify which slot we
>>>> want the xen-platform device to occupy. Is it worth thinking of the best
>>>> way to add a patch like this upstream?
>>>
>>> I think that would be nice for people who switch from qemu-trad to
>>> QEMU. The only question that remain is, how to name the xl config
>>> option? The rest is to simply take my libxl patch and make it use
>>> the new config option.
>>
>> Well the other half would be to make sure something like this doesn't
>> happen by accident in the future -- i.e., that no future changes in QEMU
>> will accidentally move it away from whatever the current slot is now.
>>
>
> IMO, it would be best if libxl specified the bus topology exactly (i.e. specified devfn for everything that appears on the bus). If we, as I hope, make a move to having Xen rather than QEMU own the topology then this should hopefully ensure at least some degree of forward compatibility.
Is this on anybody's radar? It seems like this wouldn't be a huge
amount of work, and it would prevent this sort of compatibility issue in
the future.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-08 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-20 17:40 PCI Device Subtree Change from Traditional to Upstream Kevin Stange
2017-12-20 17:44 ` George Dunlap
2018-01-03 17:57 ` Anthony PERARD
2018-01-03 23:10 ` Kevin Stange
2018-01-04 12:52 ` Anthony PERARD
2018-01-04 13:26 ` Paul Durrant
2018-01-04 21:17 ` Kevin Stange
2018-01-05 9:03 ` Paul Durrant
2018-01-05 17:05 ` Kevin Stange
2018-01-04 21:16 ` Kevin Stange
2018-01-05 17:10 ` Kevin Stange
2018-01-05 20:56 ` Kevin Stange
2018-01-25 17:54 ` George Dunlap
2018-01-25 18:04 ` Anthony PERARD
2018-01-25 18:14 ` George Dunlap
2018-01-26 10:38 ` Paul Durrant
2019-04-08 9:46 ` George Dunlap [this message]
2019-04-08 9:46 ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2019-04-08 9:51 ` Paul Durrant
2019-04-08 9:51 ` [Xen-devel] " Paul Durrant
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=eefdc065-6557-a5a7-e0c5-f941ce6a6911@citrix.com \
--to=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=Paul.Durrant@citrix.com \
--cc=anthony.perard@citrix.com \
--cc=kevin@steadfast.net \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).