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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.01.15 at 03:30, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Yeah, for the actual E820 the conversion of course has to happen.
>> But I think there's no strong need for it to be done on the variant
>> obtainable via hypercall - it would only destroy information, and who
>> knows what having that piece of information available may be good
>> for in the future.
> 
> If not destroying the new flag, it may break BIOS or OS if they don't know
> the new flag. So I'd interpret the life cycle of new flag bit only valid
> between hypercall return and constructing actual e820, and it will be
> translated into E820_RESERVE in actual e820 if no conflict is detected.

That's what I said above. I'm advocating for keeping the flag set only
in what the hypercall returns.

Jan


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