Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 3/4] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server.

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 August 2016 09:11
> To: Paul Durrant; Yu Zhang
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; George Dunlap; Jun Nakajima; Kevin Tian;
> zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tim (Xen.org)
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 3/4] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to
> map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server.
> 
> >>> On 09.08.16 at 09:39, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 8/8/2016 11:40 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 12.07.16 at 11:02, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> +    rc = -ENOENT;
> >>> +    list_for_each_entry ( s,
> >>> +                          &d->arch.hvm_domain.ioreq_server.list,
> >>> +                          list_entry )
> >>> +    {
> >>> +        if ( s == d->arch.hvm_domain.default_ioreq_server )
> >>> +            continue;
> >>> +
> >>> +        if ( s->id == id )
> >>> +        {
> >>> +            rc = p2m_set_ioreq_server(d, flags, s);
> >>> +            if ( rc == 0 )
> >>> +                dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, "%u %s type
> HVMMEM_ioreq_server.\n",
> >>> +                         s->id, (flags != 0) ? "mapped to" : "unmapped 
> >>> from");
> >> Is this really useful?
> >
> > Sorry, are you referring to this debug message?
> > I believe it helps, especially when multiple ioreq servers are
> > claiming/disclaiming their ownership of
> > the HVMMEM_ioreq_server. :)
> 
> Well, that's a configuration bug anyway right now, so I'm not really
> with you. But in the end it'll be Paul to judge ...
>

Indeed, I don't the message has a massive amount of value. More useful would be 
to add a call into keyhandler.c:dump_domains() to display the current claim.

  Paul
 
> Jan


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