Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: implement VCPUOP_register_runstate_phys_memory_area

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.05.19 at 15:05, <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14.05.19 15:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Well, I think Julian's implication was that we can't support in particular
>> the boot loader -> kernel handover case without extra measures (if
>> at all), and hence he added things together and said what results
>> from this. Of course ideally we'd reject mixed requests, but unless
>> someone can come up with a clever means of how to determine entity
>> boundaries I'm afraid this is not going to be possible without breaking
>> certain setups.
> 
>  From my understanding, if we are speaking of different entities in a domain 
> and their boundaries, we have to define unregister interface as well. So that 
> those entities would be able to take care of themselves explicitly.

If this was a concern only for newly written code, this would be fine.
But you need to make sure all existing code also continues to work
with whatever new interface you implement. Just because a kernel
uses your new physical address based mechanism doesn't mean the
boot loader knows to unregister what it has registered.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel