[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.
- To: "Paul Durrant" <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Kevin Tian" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:32:29 -0700
- Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>, Zhang Yu <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Zhiyuan Lv <zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx>, IanJackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:32:38 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
>>> On 17.02.16 at 09:58, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I'd envisaged that setting HVM_emulate_0 type on a page would mean
>> nothing until an
>>
>> for "mean nothing" what is the default policy then if guest happens to access
>> it
>> before any ioreq server claims it?
>>
>
> My thoughts were that, since no specific emulation has yet been requested
> (because no ioreq server has yet claimed it) that the default policy is to
> treat it as r/w RAM as I said below. This is because I think the only legal
> type transitions should be from HVMMEM_ram_rw to HVMMEM_emulate_0 and back
> again.
+1
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
