Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/02/16 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.02.16 at 10:58, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks for the help. Let's see whether we can have some solution ready for 
>> 4.7. :-)
> 
> Since we now seem to all agree that a different approach is going to
> be taken, I think we indeed should revert f5a32c5b8e ("x86/HVM:
> differentiate IO/mem resources tracked by ioreq server"). Please
> voice objections to the plan pretty soon.

FWIW, after this discussion, I don't have an objection to the basic
interface in this series as it is, since it addresses my request that it
be memory-based, and it could be switched to using p2m types
behind-the-scenes -- with the exception of the knob to control how many
ranges are allowed (since it exposes the internal implementation).

I wouldn't object to the current implementation going in as it was in v9
(apparently), and then changing the type stuff around behind the scenes
later as an optimization.  I also don't think it would be terribly
difficult to change the implementation as it is to just use write_dm for
a single IOREQ server.  We can rename it ioreq_server and expand it
later.  Sorry if this wasn't clear from my comments before.

A new interface that's been carefully thought through would of course be
nice too.

 -George

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