On 2015/6/11 16:42, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:28 PM
On 11.06.15 at 03:15, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
v3:
* Rearrange all patches orderly as Wei suggested
* Rebase on the latest tree
* Address some Wei's comments on tools side
* Two changes for runtime cycle
patch #2,xen/x86/p2m: introduce set_identity_p2m_entry, on hypervisor
side
a>. Introduce paging_mode_translate()
Otherwise, we'll see this error when boot Xen/Dom0
(XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
(XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable x86_64 debug=y Tainted: C ]----
....
(XEN) Xen call trace:
(XEN) [<ffff82d0801f53db>] p2m_pt_get_entry+0x29/0x558
(XEN) [<ffff82d0801f0b5c>] set_identity_p2m_entry+0xfc/0x1f0
(XEN) [<ffff82d08014ebc8>] rmrr_identity_mapping+0x154/0x1ce
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802abb46>] intel_iommu_hwdom_init+0x76/0x158
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802ab169>] iommu_hwdom_init+0x179/0x188
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802cc608>] construct_dom0+0x2fed/0x35d8
(XEN) [<ffff82d0802bdaa0>] __start_xen+0x22d8/0x2381
(XEN) [<ffff82d080100067>] __high_start+0x53/0x55
(XEN)
(XEN)
(XEN) ****************************************
(XEN) Panic on CPU 0:
(XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
Note I don't copy all info since I think the above is enough.
b>. Actually we still need to use "mfn_x(mfn) == INVALID_MFN" to confirm
we're getting an invalid mfn.
* Add patch #16 to handle those devices which share same RMRR.
Summarizing the changed in the overview mail is fine, but the primary
place for them to live to help reviewing should be in the patches
themselves, after a first --- marker. This is especially so for as
extensive an explanation as you give for patch 2 here (but I'll reply
to that in the context of that patch).
Agree. Tiejun could you add per-patch version history and resend a
new version with right maintainers CCed?
Yes, I should do this as Jan mentioned but I'd like to do this next.
Because to compare v2, I didn't introduce any changes on hypervisor
side, except for these twos listed here. Others focus on refactoring
codes on tools side. But indeed, I still should comment this per patch
as you guys said.
So next, I will do
#1. Make sure send per patch to its associated maintainers
#2. Includes revision history to each patch
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
