Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 1/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.05.16 at 11:05, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -5507,6 +5507,8 @@ long do_hvm_op(unsigned long op, 
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>              get_gfn_query_unlocked(d, a.pfn, &t);
>              if ( p2m_is_mmio(t) )
>                  a.mem_type =  HVMMEM_mmio_dm;
> +            else if ( t == p2m_ioreq_server )
> +                a.mem_type = HVMMEM_ioreq_server;
>              else if ( p2m_is_readonly(t) )
>                  a.mem_type =  HVMMEM_ram_ro;
>              else if ( p2m_is_ram(t) )

I can see this being suitable to be done here, but ...

> @@ -5537,7 +5539,8 @@ long do_hvm_op(unsigned long op, 
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>              [HVMMEM_ram_rw]  = p2m_ram_rw,
>              [HVMMEM_ram_ro]  = p2m_ram_ro,
>              [HVMMEM_mmio_dm] = p2m_mmio_dm,
> -            [HVMMEM_unused] = p2m_invalid
> +            [HVMMEM_unused] = p2m_invalid,
> +            [HVMMEM_ioreq_server] = p2m_ioreq_server
>          };
>  
>          if ( copy_from_guest(&a, arg, 1) )

... how can this be correct without actual handling having got added?
IOW doesn't at least this change belong into a later patch?

Jan


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