Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] x86/ioreq server(patch for 4.7): Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server.

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

I sort of feel like we're playing some strange guessing game with the
color of this bike shed, where all 4 of us give a random combination
of constrants and then we have to figure out what the solution is. :-)

There are two issues: the interface (HVMMEM_*) and the internals.(p2m_*).

Jan says that code that calls HVMOP_get_mem_type has to continue to
compile and function.  "Functioning" is easy, as you just don't return
that value and you're done.  Compiling just means having the #ifdef.

It sounds like we all agree that HVMOP_set_mem_type with the current
HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm value should return -EINVAL.

Regarding the p2m type which now should be impossible to set -- I
don't think it's critical to remove from the release, since it's just
internal.  I'd normally say just leave it for now to reduce code
churn.

But mostly I think we just want to get this bike shed painted, so if
anyone thinks we should really remove the p2m type from this release,
then that's fine with me too (assuming it's OK with Wei).

Does this cover everything?

 -George

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