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

RE: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Testing a simpler inter-domain transport

  • To: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:54:11 -0800
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:06:01 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcYt8FrDq4meKvfTR863LC7e48Ti3AAekC+Q
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Testing a simpler inter-domain transport

> > On ia64 and I believe also on PPC, a guest can translate
> > from virtual to (pseudo)physical but only on x86 can
> > a guest translate from virtual to machine -- at least
> > without an extra hypercall.  On all three,
> > Xen can translate from (pseudo)physical to machine but
> > only on x86 can Xen translate from virtual to
> > (pseudo)physical. 
> I don't think x86 Xen can translate physical to machine, only 
> machine to
> physical.  So I think we're going to need arch-specific wrappers for
> these translations anyway, since everyone wants different things.

Ah, I see you are (mostly) correct.  The phys_to_machine_mapping
table is apparently only used on x86 by HVM and shadow mode.

> This shouldn't be too bad: if you want to take a crack at it I'd be
> happy to apply your patches, or you can wait until I finish the block
> device (probably next week).

Given the above, I think I will wait to see what you come up with.


Xen-devel mailing list



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