Re: [Xen-devel] (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 12.01.15 at 11:12, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 6:09 PM
>> 
>> >>> On 12.01.15 at 10:56, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > the result is related to another open whether we want to block guest
>> > boot for such problem. If 'warn' in domain builder is acceptable, we
>> > don't need to change lowmem for such rare 1GB case, just throws
>> > a warning for unnecessary conflictions (doesn't hurt if user doesn't
>> > assign it).
>> 
>> And how would you then deal with the one guest needing that
>> range reserved?
> 
> if guest needs the range, then report-all or report-sel doesn't matter.
> domain builder throws the warning, and later device assignment will
> fail (or warn w/ override). In reality I think 1GB is rare. Making such
> assumption to simplify implementation is reasonable.

One of my main problems with all you recent argumentation here
is the arbitrary use of the 1Gb boundary - there's nothing special
in this discussion with where the boundary is. Everything revolves
around the (undue) effect of report-all on domains not needing all
of the ranges found on the host.

Jan


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