On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:41:23AM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: > On 2017年10月25日 09:43, Lan Tianyu wrote: > >> For all platforms supporting HVM, for PV I don't think it makes sense. > >> > Since AFAIK ARM guest type is also HVM I would rather introduce this > >> > field in the hvm_domain structure rather than the generic domain > >> > structure. > >> > > > This sounds reasonable. > > > >> > You might want to wait for feedback from others regarding this issue. > >> > > > I discussed with Julien before. He hoped no to add viommu code for ARM > > first.So struct hvm_domain seems to be better place since it's arch > > specific definition and only add struct viommu for struct hvm_domain of x86. > > Hi Roger: > If PV guest needs PV IOMMU support, struct iommu should be put into > struct domain and it can be reused by full-virtualization and PV iommu. > Malcolm Crossley sent out RFC patch of pv iommu before. I found it also > needs to change struct domain. > > https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-02/msg01441.html
This patch series is from February 2016: almost two years old and there's been no further repost. If this can indeed be shared with a future pv-iommu work, have you checked whether the current structure data and hooks would be suitable for a pv-iommu implementation? I would rather prefer to move the viommu structure from hvm_domain to the generic domain struct when it's actually needed (ie: when pv-iommu is implemented) rather than doing it here. Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
