Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] Resize the MAX_NR_IO_RANGES for ioreq server

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.07.15 at 11:23, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I wonder, would it be sufficient - at this stage - to add a new mapping 
> sub-op 
> to the HVM op to distinguish mapping of mapping gfns vs. MMIO ranges. That 
> way we could use the same implementation underneath for now (using the 
> rb_rangeset, which I think stands on its own merits for MMIO ranges anyway) 

Which would be (taking into account the good description of the
differences between RAM and MMIO pages given by George
yesterday [I think])? I continue to not be convinced we need
this new rangeset type (the more that it's name seems wrong,
since - as said by George - we're unlikely to deal with ranges
here).

Jan

> but allow them to diverge later... perhaps using a new P2T (page-to-type) 
> table, which I believe may become necessary as Intel reclaims bits for h/w 
> use and thus squeezes our existing number of supported page types.
> 
>   Paul



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