On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 07:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.07.2019 19:40, Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 12:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 19.07.2019 14:37, Paul Durrant wrote: > > > > > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > > > > Sent: 19 July 2019 13:32 > > > > > > > > > > On 19.07.2019 14:11, Paul Durrant wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU <ppircal...@bitdefender.com> > > > > > > > Sent: 19 July 2019 12:24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say it's shared with MD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks for your support, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, in that case please share with the ID instead. > > > > > > > > > > But that's exactly what we want to avoid: If sharing at all, > > > > > then > > > > > please with the more privileged entity. > > > > > > > > Why? We're talking HVM guests only here IIUC so this is > > > > equivalent > > > > to IOREQ server... > > > > > > Not sure: The main vm_event.c files live in common/ and arch/x86/ > > > respectively, so I thought at least architecturally VM events > > > were > > > possible for PV as well. If it's indeed HVM-only, then following > > > the IOREQ server model in its entirety would of course be fine. > > > > In one of the previous version of the patchset there was a > > suggestion > > to implement the new vm_event transport using IOREQ, but it was > > dropped > > . > > > > https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2019-04/msg00173.html > > And validly so (imo), not the least because of also being HVM > specific. > > > Also, unless there isn't a proper way allocate the necessary pages, > > I > > wouldn't introduce a HVM-only limitation because, other than the > > HVM > > param used to keep track of the ring pfn, the vm_event mechanism is > > quite generic. > > By "wouldn't introduce" do you mean "wouldn't want to introduce" or > do > you mean to say you in fact wouldn't and I'm not seeing why that is? > > Jan
Well, I think "I would prefer not to" would have been better. The main ideea is that I wouldn't want to add a limitation to the applicability of this feature unless it's the only possible solution. Many thanks for your support, Petre _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
