Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN][RFC PATCH V2 05/17] hvm: Modify hvm_op

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/10/2012 02:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 10.09.12 at 15:02, Julien Grall<julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > > >          
> > On 08/24/2012 04:38 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >      
> > > > > > On 23.08.12 at 12:52, Julien Grall<julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >              
> > > > On 08/23/2012 08:27 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > > > > switch ( a.index )
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > -            case HVM_PARAM_IOREQ_PFN:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >              
> > > > > Removing sub-ops which a domain can issue for itself (which for this and
> > > > > another one below appears to be the case) is not allowed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >            
> > > > I removed these 3 sub-ops because it will not work with
> > > > QEMU disaggregation. Shared pages and event channel
> > > > for IO request are private for each device model.
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > Then they need to be made inaccessible for that specific setup, not
> > > removed altogether.
> > >
> > >
> > >        
> > What do you mean by specific feature ?
> > With this patch series, you are able to handle one or more
> > QEMU.
> > Keep a compatibility with the old IO emulation is hard.
> >      
> Did you read my original reply? Code backing operations that a
> guest can issue itself (i.e. without qemu or another host side
> component involved) just can't be removed, as you/we have
> no control over which guest(s) may be making use of that
> functionality.
>    
Ah ok misundertanding of my part. I don't really understand
in which case a domain needs to retrieve its ioreq page.
How can I made it inaccessible ? Just rc = -EINVAL ?

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel