Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] Patches for PCI passthrough with modified E820.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 21:25 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> This set of RFC patches allows a PV domain to see the machine's
> E820 and figure out where the "PCI I/O" gap is and match it with the
> reality.

Does the domain builder obey this memory map at all or is it a PV guests
responsibility to take the linear p2m allocation it starts with a move
stuff around to fit the map?

> To use this patchset, the guest config file has to have the parameter
> 'pci_hole=1' enabled (hmm, any ideas for a better name?) 

Is there any harm in just doing this for any guest configuration which
has a "pci" option specified? (including the empty list "pci=[]" to
handle guests which only want hotplug capabilities not an initial set of
devices).

Or could we even go so far as to consider always doing this
unconditionally?

Will older pvops and/or classic-Xen kernels or other PV OSes misbehave
if we do either of these? is having a default-on option which these
users need to force off better or worse than a default-off option which
the opposite set of people need to enable?

Ian.


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