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

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

> > +#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?
All concerns what you're raising above just make me realized you're 
missing all background info and history changes. So I think if you 
really would like to review this series, at least you should take a look 
at our previous design and some basic change log, which are mentioned 
inside patch #00.
Thanks
Tiejun

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