Re: [Xen-devel] (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 11:41 +0000 on 19 Jan (1421664109), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.01.15 at 12:33, <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > FWIW, I don't like adding hypervisor state (and even more so
> > hypervisor mechanism like a new hypercall) for things that the
> > hypervisor doesn't need to know about.  Since the e820 is only shared
> > between the tools and the guest, I'd prefer it to go in either
> > the hvm_info_table or xenstore.
> 
> But we have the guest E820 in the hypervisor already, which we
> also can't drop (as XENMEM_memory_map is a generally accessible
> hypercall).

So we do. :(  What is the difference between that (with appropriate
reserved regions in the map) and the proposed new hypercall?

Tim.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel