RE: [Xen-devel] [patch] more correct pfn_valid()

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tian, Kevin
>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:06 PM
>>
>>For paravirtualized guests we provide a model wherebe 'physical'
memory
>>starts at 0 and is contiguous, but maps to arbitrary machine pages.
>>Since for paravirtualized guests you can hack the kernel, I don't see
>>any need to support anything else. [Note that IO address do not have
>>pages in this map, whereas they do in the fully virtualized case]
>
>Sorry that I need some time to understand trick here. Do you mean the
>'physical' memory will always be continuous for any memory size, like
>4G, 16G, nG...? Does that mean there's other way to arrange the MMIO
>address, PIB address, etc. dynamically based on memory size? Or all the
>I/O will be dummy operation... But dom0 has to access physical
memory...
>sorry I'm getting messed here, and appreciate your input. :)
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin

Hi, Ian,

For this part, I made a mistake to confuse domN and dom0. OK, for
paravirtualized guest, there's actually no I/O range for domN, since the
front driver in domN will do all things to communicate with backend in
Dom0. But what about a driver domain which has access to physical
device, thus need real I/O address?

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel