Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 5/5] iommu: add rmrr Xen command line option for extra rmrrs

[Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- JBeulich@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> >>> On 15.07.15 at 18:15, <elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > ----- JBeulich@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> >> >>> On 15.07.15 at 17:27, <elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:25:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 14.07.15 at 12:43, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On 13.07.15 at 20:18, <elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> +/* Macro for RMRR inclusive range formatting. */
> >> >> >> +#define PRI_RMRR(s,e) "[%lx-%lx]"
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Just PRI_RMRR (i.e. no parens or parameters) please. And I'm
> >> still
> >> >> > missing a macro to pair the respective arguments - as said
> >> before,
> >> >> > as single format specifier should be accompanied by a single
> >> >> > argument (as visible to the reader at the use sites).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Answering your IRC question here:
> >> >> 
> >> >> #define ERU_FMT "[%lx-%lx]"
> >> >> #define ERU_ARG(eru) eru.base_pfn, eru.end_pfn
> >> >> 
> >> >> (with the acronym "eru" open for improvement).
> >> > 
> >> > Great! Thanks Jan.
> >> > Can ERU be RMRRU? 
> >> 
> >> ERMRRU maybe - I'd like the "extra" to somehow be expressed in
> >> the name.
> > 
> > Does this imply that it can be used for formatting ACPI RMRRs? 
> > Or with some modification perharps?
> 
> If you wanted that (which would be fine with me if it works as
> outlined), then dropping the E or any other remnants of "extra"
> would of course be fine. But I doubt that'll be immediately possible
> considering that RMRRs have their addresses tracked, while for
> extra RMRRs you track MFNs (i.e. you'd first need to convert
> one of them).

Thanks Jan, I will think what is better.

> 
> Jan

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