[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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




On 6/14/2016 6:04 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
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?

Thanks for your comments. :)
Well, although the new handling logic is in the 3rd patch, we still have the old handling code. Without the other patches, a developer can still use HVMMEM_ioreq_server to write-protect some guest ram pages, and try to handle the write operations on these pages with the old
approach - tracking these gfns insid the ioreq server's rangeset.

Thanks
Yu


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

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.