Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 0/6] Rangeset generalisation

[Andrii Anisov <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jan,

> If this is meant to be per-domain management - how many such
> ranges do you expect to be necessary for any one domain? We've
> had attempts before to (ab)use rangesets for such a purpose.
It is meant to be the per-domain management. To handle per-domain
vcoproc register access emulation described here [1] in terms of
shared coproc framework [2].

[1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-11/msg01935.html
[2] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-10/msg01966.html

Sincerely,
Andrii Anisov.

2017-02-16 15:25 GMT+02:00 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>:
>>>> On 16.02.17 at 13:45, <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>>> The cleanup seems a good thing to do to me.
>>
>> So I would collect comments, rebase it to latest master and push the
>> second version without RFC.
>>
>>> Any particular reason this series is RFC?
>>
>> The reason to make this series was an intention to use rangesets to
>> manage mmio ranges in our shared coprocessor framework.
>
> If this is meant to be per-domain management - how many such
> ranges do you expect to be necessary for any one domain? We've
> had attempts before to (ab)use rangesets for such a purpose.
>
>> It was planned
>> to extend range with `void* priv` to extend functionality.
>> Unfortunately the rangeset feature to merge ranges makes it unusable
>> for our needs. Also linked list, even sorted, is not really good in
>> search.
>
> This concern makes me assume there might be quite many of them,
> which then makes this a no-go for unprivileged domains.
>
> Jan
>

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