Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH 2/5] xen:x86: introduce a new hypercall to get RMRR mappings

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.08.14 at 03:07, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2014/8/14 2:21, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Chen, Tiejun
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:40 PM
>>>
>>> On 2014/8/12 20:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12.08.14 at 12:55, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014/8/8 23:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07.08.14 at 13:02, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * Returns the RMRR memory map as it was when the domain
>>>>>>> + * was started.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +#define XENMEM_RMRR_memory_map           26
>>>>>>> +typedef struct e820map rmrr_e820_t;
>>>>>>> +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(rmrr_e820_t);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again just as a general remark: What in the world does the "e820"
>>>>>> in here mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will redefine a struct to represent this to avoid any confusion.
>>>>
>>>> And just to avoid another needless round: The term RMRR shouldn't
>>>> be in the hypercall public interface definitions either. This needs to
>>>> be properly abstracted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without such a term RMRR I can't figure out what definition should be
>>> better as you expect, I guess you already have a better case so please
>>> share it to avoid further discussion.
>>>
>>
>> XENMEM_reserved_memory_map
>>
> 
> Okay, but I prefer to XENMEM_DEVICE_reserved_memory_map or 
> XENMEM_PLATFORM_reserved_memory_map since RMRR seems to be dedicated to 
> device or platform, right?
> 
> Anyway, I'm fine as well once Jan have no any objection to this.

I'd be fine with Kevin's suggestion (as I can't see any other
reserved memory maps to appear), but I'd also be fine with
XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map or some such to
suit your concerns.

Jan


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