[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 5] libxl: Add support for passing in the machine's E820 for PCI passthrough
At 14:55 +0100 on 08 Apr (1302274509), Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 14:35 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 11:56:52AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 5] libxl: Add support > > > for passing in the machine's E820 for PCI passthrough"): > > > > Are we expecting that libxl users might want to modify the e820? If not > > > > then why expose libxl_e820_alloc and libxl_e820_sanitize at all, just > > > > add a flag to the libxl interface which says whether or not to provide a > > > > host-derived e820. > > > > > > Well, also, why do we need that flag at all ? Are we trying to do > > > something different with domains which might get pci passthrough ? If > > > > Yes. Well, it does work OK even if you are _not_ doing PCI passthrough. > > But the main users for this are the ones doing PCI passthrough. > > > > > so then that's what should be specified at the libxl api, surely, > > > rather than some opaque "write this rune to make it work" option. > > > > OK. If I am understanding you guys right, you are saying, latch > > it of the 'pci' option instead of this 'pci_hole' option. > > ACK. For the pure-hotplug case an empty pci=[] ought to suffice to > trigger this functionality. That's a _horrible_ config syntax. We should either do this for all guests or give it its own option (which can default to 1 for guests with non-empty passthrough lists if you like). Cheers, Tim. -- Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> Principal Software Engineer, Xen Platform Team Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |