Re: [Xen-devel] [v3][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2015/6/11 16:42, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:28 PM
> >
> > > > > On 11.06.15 at 03:15, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > v3:
> > >
> > > * Rearrange all patches orderly as Wei suggested
> > > * Rebase on the latest tree
> > > * Address some Wei's comments on tools side
> > > * Two changes for runtime cycle
> > >     patch #2,xen/x86/p2m: introduce set_identity_p2m_entry, on hypervisor
> > > side
> > >
> > >    a>. Introduce paging_mode_translate()
> > >    Otherwise, we'll see this error when boot Xen/Dom0
> > >
> > > (XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
> > > (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable  x86_64  debug=y  Tainted:    C ]----
> > > ....
> > > (XEN) Xen call trace:
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d0801f53db>] p2m_pt_get_entry+0x29/0x558
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d0801f0b5c>] set_identity_p2m_entry+0xfc/0x1f0
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d08014ebc8>] rmrr_identity_mapping+0x154/0x1ce
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802abb46>] intel_iommu_hwdom_init+0x76/0x158
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802ab169>] iommu_hwdom_init+0x179/0x188
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802cc608>] construct_dom0+0x2fed/0x35d8
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d0802bdaa0>] __start_xen+0x22d8/0x2381
> > > (XEN)    [<ffff82d080100067>] __high_start+0x53/0x55
> > > (XEN)
> > > (XEN)
> > > (XEN) ****************************************
> > > (XEN) Panic on CPU 0:
> > > (XEN) Assertion 'paging_mode_translate(p2m->domain)' failed at p2m-pt.c:702
> > >
> > > Note I don't copy all info since I think the above is enough.
> > >
> > >    b>. Actually we still need to use "mfn_x(mfn) == INVALID_MFN" to confirm
> > >    we're getting an invalid mfn.
> > >
> > > * Add patch #16 to handle those devices which share same RMRR.
> > Summarizing the changed in the overview mail is fine, but the primary
> > place for them to live to help reviewing should be in the patches
> > themselves, after a first --- marker. This is especially so for as
> > extensive an explanation as you give for patch 2 here (but I'll reply
> > to that in the context of that patch).
> Agree. Tiejun could you add per-patch version history and resend a
> new version with right maintainers CCed?
Yes, I should do this as Jan mentioned but I'd like to do this next.

Because to compare v2, I didn't introduce any changes on hypervisor 
side, except for these twos listed here. Others focus on refactoring 
codes on tools side. But indeed, I still should comment this per patch 
as you guys said.
So next, I will do

#1. Make sure send per patch to its associated maintainers
#2. Includes revision history to each patch

Thanks
Tiejun

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