Re: [Xen-devel] [v4][PATCH 04/19] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/xen/include/public/domctl.h b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> index bc45ea5..2f9e40e 100644
> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> @@ -478,6 +478,11 @@ struct xen_domctl_assign_device {
>              XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(char) path; /* path to the device tree node 
> */
>          } dt;
>      } u;
> +    /* IN */
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_NO_RDM           0
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED      1
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_STRICT       2
> +    uint32_t  flag;   /* flag of assigned device */

Normally flags would be bit fields, not values like this.

Also, what's the distinction between RDM and RMRR, and is there a good
reason to use the first here rather than the second?

It's also not clear to me what NO_RDM is meant to be for -- is it
meant to be an assertion that the caller expects the device to have no
RMRRs associated with it?

 -George

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