Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/10] vm_event: Add vm_event_ng interface

[Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU <ppircalabu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 07:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.07.2019 19:40, Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 12:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 19.07.2019 14:37, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > > From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: 19 July 2019 13:32
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 19.07.2019 14:11, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU <ppircalabu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: 19 July 2019 12:24
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say it's shared with MD.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Many thanks for your support,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok, in that case please share with the ID instead.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But that's exactly what we want to avoid: If sharing at all,
> > > > > then
> > > > > please with the more privileged entity.
> > > > 
> > > > Why? We're talking HVM guests only here IIUC so this is
> > > > equivalent
> > > > to IOREQ server...
> > > 
> > > Not sure: The main vm_event.c files live in common/ and arch/x86/
> > > respectively, so I thought at least architecturally VM events
> > > were
> > > possible for PV as well. If it's indeed HVM-only, then following
> > > the IOREQ server model in its entirety would of course be fine.
> > 
> > In one of the previous version of the patchset there was a
> > suggestion
> > to implement the new vm_event transport using IOREQ, but it was
> > dropped
> > .
> > 
> > 
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2019-04/msg00173.html
> 
> And validly so (imo), not the least because of also being HVM
> specific.
> 
> > Also, unless there isn't a proper way allocate the necessary pages,
> > I
> > wouldn't introduce a HVM-only limitation because, other than the
> > HVM
> > param used to keep track of the ring pfn, the vm_event mechanism is
> > quite generic.
> 
> By "wouldn't introduce" do you mean "wouldn't want to introduce" or
> do
> you mean to say you in fact wouldn't and I'm not seeing why that is?
> 
> Jan

Well, I think "I would prefer not to" would have been better. The main
ideea is that I wouldn't want to add a limitation to the applicability
of this feature unless it's the only possible solution.

Many thanks for your support,
Petre

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