On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:16:55AM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > > Le 16 Jun 2020 à 18:50, Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> a écrit : > > > > Hi, > > > >> (a) We could rely in the guest physbits to calculate the PCI64 aperture. > > > > I'd love to do that. Move the 64-bit I/O window as high as possible and > > use -- say -- 25% of the physical address space for it. > > > > Problem is we can't. > > Is the only reason unreliable guest physbits?
Yes. > > If we can somehow make a *trustable* physbits value available to the > > guest, then yes, we can go that route. But the guest physbits we have > > today unfortunately don't cut it. > > What is the rationale for ever allowing guest physbits > host physbits? I can't think of a good reason. So probably simply historical reasons and the fact that this isn't a problem with tcg. take care, Gerd Hoffmann
