[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

  • To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "Scott Parish" <srparish@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:19:51 +0100
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:19:26 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [patch] more correct pfn_valid()

 > 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?

This works the same in dom0 and other domains:
IO machine addresses must be mapped into the kernel virtual address
space before you can use them. They are totally orthogonal to ram
addresses, and don't get mfn->pfn translated.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.