[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix
- To: "Tim Deegan" <tim@xxxxxxx>
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:41:49 +0000
- Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx" <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, "stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yang Z Zhang <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:41:55 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
>>> On 19.01.15 at 12:33, <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> FWIW, I don't like adding hypervisor state (and even more so
> hypervisor mechanism like a new hypercall) for things that the
> hypervisor doesn't need to know about. Since the e820 is only shared
> between the tools and the guest, I'd prefer it to go in either
> the hvm_info_table or xenstore.
But we have the guest E820 in the hypervisor already, which we
also can't drop (as XENMEM_memory_map is a generally accessible
hypercall).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
