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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.01.15 at 13:23, <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

The proposed new hypercall represents _only_ reserved regions.
But it was said several times that making the existing one work
for HVM (and then fit the purposes here) is at least an option
worth investigating.

Jan


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