RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Announcing xen/master: pvops git trees rearranged

["Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Jeremy, 
   After reading your branch new_interrupt_routing,  I think the main changes 
about two hypercalls and their purposes maybe unnecessary.  I also implemented 
the similar logic to remove ioapic changes from pv_ops dom0 and just re-used 
and extended existing interfaces for that.  As to the new-introduced hypercall 
PHYSDEVOP_route_gsi,  the existing hypercall PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq can cover its 
functionality through some extension. And for the hypercall 
PHYSDEVOP_acpi_irq_model, seems it is redundant and unncessary, because 
irq_model can be parsed through the related acpi tables, so hypervisor and dom0 
can reach the agreement automatically after parsing the tables.   

The attached two patches are based on latest Xen and pv_ops_dom0, and they 
should works for you with latest Xen and pv_ops dom0. Since they are only for 
furuther discussion, so one dirty hack about probe_gsi also exists in the 
current code.  
Xiantao

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:14 AM
To: Christian Tramnitz
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; He, Qing; Zhang, Xiantao
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Announcing xen/master: pvops git trees rearranged

On 09/23/09 06:16, Christian Tramnitz wrote:
> are there plans to get any of the (non-bugfix) changes to upstream?
> I think the 2.6.32 merge window will close very soon right?

No plans to put anything into .32.  We need to have a solid story about
how to handle IOAPIC setup before pushing the rest, I think.  I've just
restarted work on that, but I need to work out how to reconcile it with
the recent MSI work.

    J

Attachment: pv_ops_dom.patch
Description: pv_ops_dom.patch

Attachment: xen.patch
Description: xen.patch

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel