On 17/02/16 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 17.02.16 at 10:58, <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the help. Let's see whether we can have some solution ready for >> 4.7. :-) > > Since we now seem to all agree that a different approach is going to > be taken, I think we indeed should revert f5a32c5b8e ("x86/HVM: > differentiate IO/mem resources tracked by ioreq server"). Please > voice objections to the plan pretty soon.
FWIW, after this discussion, I don't have an objection to the basic interface in this series as it is, since it addresses my request that it be memory-based, and it could be switched to using p2m types behind-the-scenes -- with the exception of the knob to control how many ranges are allowed (since it exposes the internal implementation). I wouldn't object to the current implementation going in as it was in v9 (apparently), and then changing the type stuff around behind the scenes later as an optimization. I also don't think it would be terribly difficult to change the implementation as it is to just use write_dm for a single IOREQ server. We can rename it ioreq_server and expand it later. Sorry if this wasn't clear from my comments before. A new interface that's been carefully thought through would of course be nice too. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel