> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Sent: 19 July 2019 09:22 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> > Cc: 'Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU' <ppircal...@bitdefender.com>; JulienGrall > <julien.gr...@arm.com>; > Alexandru Stefan ISAILA <aisa...@bitdefender.com>; Razvan Cojocaru > <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>; Andrew > Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com>; > Ian Jackson > <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monne <roger....@citrix.com>; Stefano > Stabellini > <sstabell...@kernel.org>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; KonradRzeszutek Wilk > <konrad.w...@oracle.com>; Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com>; Tim > (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Wei Liu > <w...@xen.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] vm_event: Add vm_event_ng interface > > On 19.07.2019 09:56, Paul Durrant wrote: > >> From: Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU <ppircal...@bitdefender.com> > >> Sent: 18 July 2019 14:59 > >> > >> So, at this point the most promising solution is allocating the memory > >> in XEN, sharing it with ID using share_xen_page_with_guest, and mapping > >> it with xenforeignmemory_map_resource (with the flag > >> XENMEM_rsrc_acq_caller_owned set) > > > > If that page is shared with the ID then XENMEM_rsrc_acq_caller_owned > > should *not* be set. Also, that flag is an 'out' flag... the caller > > doesn't decide who owns the resource. > > I had implied that it's really MD that's meant here, but maybe I was > wrong doing so. > > > TBH I regret ever introducing the flag; it caused a lot of problems, > > which is why it is no longer used. > > It's a tools only interface - why don't we drop the flag if you now > think it was a bad idea to introduce it?
I was indeed thinking I should find enough tuits to do that in the near future. Paul > > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
