Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 00/12] Implement the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypercall for ARM

[Andrii Tseglytskyi <andrii.tseglytskyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am OK

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Arianna Avanzini
<avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 23/08/2014 01:51, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Arianna Avanzini
>>> <avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 22/08/2014 20:27, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>>>>> Hi Arianna,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Arianna Avanzini
>>>>> <avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/08/2014 17:43, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Arianna,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just one more question - how iomem mapping will be handled by XSM 
>>>>>>> framework?
>>>>>>> I'm using older revision of your patch series and I need to do the
>>>>>>> following change to permit domU working with already mapped iomem,
>>>>>>> (only if XSM is enabled and FLASK is enforsed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit 3f35dae860bd0f566ca156608ec53e3240aacd5a
>>>>>>> Author: Andrii Tseglytskyi <andrii.tseglytskyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Date:   Thu Aug 21 18:00:20 2014 +0300
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     xsm: arm: allow domU to use iomem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Change-Id: I7eff12b127e0d32d97a67e77dbcca3a8326dfd22
>>>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Andrii Tseglytskyi 
>>>>>>> <andrii.tseglytskyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>>>>> b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>>>>> index d7147fb..ac4a01d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/flask/policy/policy/modules/xen/xen.te
>>>>>>> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ admin_device(dom0_t, device_t)
>>>>>>>  admin_device(dom0_t, irq_t)
>>>>>>>  admin_device(dom0_t, ioport_t)
>>>>>>>  admin_device(dom0_t, iomem_t)
>>>>>>> +admin_device(domU_t, iomem_t)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  domain_comms(dom0_t, dom0_t)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this a point, or I missed something ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this is a point, if I understood things well. Do you prefer to 
>>>>>> submit
>>>>>> your patch personally if/after the memory_mapping patchset is eventually 
>>>>>> merged,
>>>>>> or do you prefer that I send your patch with the memory_mapping patchset?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great if you include this patch to your patch series, keep
>>>>> my authority and add your sign-off-by.
>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, but I think my signed-off-by in this case is not appropriate nor
>>>> required.
>>>> I'll add it to the upcoming v11 with your signed-off-by and your 
>>>> authority, if
>>>> it's OK for you. I proposed you to merge it with the memory_mapping 
>>>> patchset
>>>> just because I think it might be simpler to review it this way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure. Completely agree. Let's proceed in this way.
>>
>> Arianna,
>> keeping Andrii as original Author and having his Signed-off-by line in
>> the commit message is the right thing to do. However in addition to that
>> you should also add yours as you are making the patch part of your
>> series. Basically everybody that touches the patch needs to add her own
>> Signed-off-by line for copyright reasons.
>>
>>
>
> Hello Stefano,
>
> thank you for pointing that out, I really didn't know that my Signed-off-by 
> was
> required. If Andrii is OK with it I'll go with his initial suggestion then.
>
> Thank you,
> Arianna
>
>
> --
> /*
>  * Arianna Avanzini
>  * avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx
>  * 73628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  */



-- 

Andrii Tseglytskyi | Embedded Dev
GlobalLogic
www.globallogic.com

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