[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] x86/p2m: use large pages for MMIO mappings
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 01:11 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 15.01.16 at 15:55, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 07:39 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > I don't think I agree - there are two models. The meaning of > > > -E2BIG for the caller to retry with a smaller amount doesn't exist in > > > the new model anymore, and hence libxc wouldn't need to deal > > > with that case anymore if the ARM side got updated too. > > > > If ARM still has this behaviour then it is still part of the interface > > IMHO, whether or not x86 chooses to use this particular possibility or > > not. > > Okay, that's a valid perspective. > > > > ÂWhereas > > > positive return values don't exist in the present (prior to the > > > patch) > > > model. > > > > If there were two models in the way you suggest then there would surely > > be > > an ifdef somewhere in libxc. The fact that the two behaviours can > > coexist > > means to me that they are two halves of the same model (irrespective of > > arch code opting in to different halves, and irrespective if having > > updated > > ARM there are then fewer possible error cases and a follow up > > simplification to libxc). > > Same here. > > > Anyway, the current three-bullet point description of the new ABI in > > the > > commit message is clearly insufficient for the complexity whether we > > want > > to split hairs about how many models there are here or not. > > > > At the very least the interface (_all_ aspects of it) should be > > thoroughly > > described in domctl.h next to XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping (which I just > > noticed describes E2BIG and isn't changed here at all). > > I can certainly do that, but I'd like to avoid doing this for the current > model before having taken a decision on whether to instead use the > alternative described in the post-commit message issue list. In fact, > the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the alternative > provides the more consistent interface, no matter that it leaves more > of the (cleanup) work to the caller. I must confess I'm not entirely following what the various proposals are, but FWIW I have no in-principal problem with the caller (by which I think you mean the tools?) having to cleanup partial success in order to allow incremental attempts to set things up with smaller and smaller page sizes. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |