[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/ioreq server(patch for 4.7): Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server.
- To: "Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:33:01 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim \(Xen.org\)" <tim@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zhiyuan Lv <zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:33:08 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
- Thread-index: AQHRnuAEnso/hRzt0UulNVvR0OlL5Z+akHgAgAAltND///bbgIAAIptw///iQQCAAAP9gIAABj6AgAAsPxCAAOI8gIAAI+Lg
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/ioreq server(patch for 4.7): Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server.
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> >
> > For clarity, do you expect any existing use of HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm
> to continue to *function*? I agree that things should continue to build, but
> if
> they don't need to function then the now redundant p2m type should be
> removed IMO and any attempt to set a page to HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm
> (or the new HVMMEM_unused) name should result in -EINVAL. What is your
> position on this?
> >
>
> Thanks, Paul.
> My expectation is that HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm shall fail in new xen
> version, but I do not think we need to remove the p2m type, just
> rename it could be OK.
>
I think we need George's response before we can proceed.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
