>From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 12:34 AM > >>>> On 06.07.15 at 12:09, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 01/07/15 19:09, Ed White wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Ed White <edmund.h.wh...@intel.com> >> >> I am still very much unconvinced by the argument against having a >> single HVMOP_altp2m and a set of subops. do_domctl() and do_sysctl() >> are examples of a subop style hypercall with different XSM settings >> for different subops. > >+1
Thanks Andrew and Jan for providing feedback on what the maintainers want to see for the HVMOP_altp2m. Just wanted some clarity from a timing perspective on this one so we know how to proceed - is creating a single HVMOP_altp2m and a set of associated subops a requirement to be completed for 4.6 or is that something that can be addressed in a subsequent change? Thanks, Ravi _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
