Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 02/18] PVH xen: add XENMEM_add_to_physmap_range

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:13:04 +0100
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> On 07.06.13 at 00:19, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
...
> I never said it's a regression. It's incomplete functionality you add.
> Someone adding a use of this to PV or PV drivers, testing it on
> 64-bit, may validly expect that this would work the same on 32-bit.
> 
> > Moreover, in the past, you've asked to remove even the simplest
> > benign line space change because it was unrelated to the patch. So
> > changing something as part of PVH patchset for PV and HVM guests,
> > wouldn't that be unrelated and contradictory to the message you've
> > sent? 
> 
> In no way - I'm simply asking for consistency here. If you handled
> the hypercall _only_ for PVH guests, and left the implementation
> for 32-bit PVH out entirely because such guests can't work anyway
> with the patch set in place, that would be consistent. But as said
> before: This would artificially limit a hypercall, and that's a
> separate reason not to accept such a partial implementation.

One last time :), the hcall is *already* limited, I'm unlimiting 
it *one step at a time*.

> > You've found some very genunie issues in the patchset, and I really 
> > appreciate that. But I struggle with this request.
> 
> Then leave it out, and I'll waste my time on getting it implemented
> once the patch set is in. But please add a clear note of this state
> to the patch description.

Ok, I'll add a note to the patch description.

thanks
Mukesh



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel