>>> On 15.07.15 at 13:05, <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 15.07.15 at 10:59, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
>>> What about this?
>>>
>>> @@ -301,6 +301,19 @@ void pci_setup(void)
>>> pci_mem_start <<= 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + for ( i = 0; i < memory_map.nr_map ; i++ )
>>> + {
>>> + uint64_t reserved_start, reserved_size;
>>> + reserved_start = memory_map.map[i].addr;
>>> + reserved_size = memory_map.map[i].size;
>>> + if ( check_overlap(pci_mem_start, pci_mem_end - pci_mem_start,
>>> + reserved_start, reserved_size) )
>>> + {
>>> + printf("Reserved device memory conflicts current PCI
>>> memory.\n");
>>> + BUG();
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> So what would the cure be if someone ran into this BUG() (other
>> than removing the device associated with the conflicting RMRR)?
>> Afaics such a guest would remain permanently unbootable, which
>> of course is not an option.
>
> Is not booting worse than what we have now -- which is, booting
> successfully but (probably) having issues due to MMIO ranges
> overlapping RMRRs?
Again a matter of perspective: For devices (USB!) where the RMRR
exists solely for boot time (or outdated OS) use, this would be a
plain regression. For the graphics device Tiejun needs this for, it of
course would make little difference, I agree.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
