Re: [Xen-devel] [v7][RFC][PATCH 01/13] introduce XENMEM_reserved_device_memory_map

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2014/10/29 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 29.10.14 at 01:40, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2014/10/28 18:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 28.10.14 at 03:35, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2014/10/27 21:35, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/24/2014 08:34 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/xen/common/memory.c b/xen/common/memory.c
> > > > > > index cc36e39..51a32a8 100644
> > > > > > --- a/xen/common/memory.c
> > > > > > +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
> > > > > > @@ -692,6 +692,32 @@ out:
> > > > > >         return rc;
> > > > > >     }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +struct get_reserved_device_memory {
> > > > > > +    struct xen_mem_reserved_device_memory_map map;
> > > > > > +    unsigned int used_entries;
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start,
> > > > > > +                                      xen_ulong_t nr, void *ctxt)
> > > > > This function is only used when HAS_PASSTHROUGH is defined. You have to
> > > > > protected by an #ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH.
> > > > I guess you mean we need to do this,
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/xen/common/memory.c b/xen/common/memory.c
> > > > index 1449c10..2177c56 100644
> > > > --- a/xen/common/memory.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
> > > > @@ -692,6 +692,7 @@ out:
> > > >         return rc;
> > > >     }
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef HAS_PASSTHROUGH
> > > >     struct get_reserved_device_memory {
> > > >         struct xen_reserved_device_memory_map map;
> > > >         unsigned int used_entries;
> > > > @@ -717,6 +718,7 @@ static int get_reserved_device_memory(xen_pfn_t start,
> > > >
> > > >         return 0;
> > > >     }
> > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > >     long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
> > > >     {
> > > >
> > > > Jan,
> > > >
> > > > With this above change, is the following working for you?
> > > I already fixed this in my version (which I view to be the canonical
> > > one).
> > Are you point that attached patch? Are you sure? Here I pick some code
> > fragments from your latest patch,
> No, that fixup was in response to Julien's comment, which I think
> was given after I had forwarded you my version. In any event,
So could you send me the latest? I'd like to replace it in my tree.

Thanks
Tiejun

> what's going to get applied is what I have here unless you find a
> need to do substantial changes to it.
>
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel