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

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 13:52 +0000 on 19 Jan (1421671928), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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.

Ah, OK.  That sounds reasonable, thanks.

Tim.


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