Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] x86/dom0: be less restrictive with the Interrupt Address Range

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.03.2025 15:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 03:27:18PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 19.02.2025 17:48, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> First two patches are preparatory changes to reduce the changes required
> >>> in patch 3.  I would have wanted those to go in 4.20 to fix the issues
> >>> on Lenovo Thinkpads, but it's too late now.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Roger.
> >>>
> >>> Roger Pau Monne (3):
> >>>   x86/dom0: correctly set the maximum ->iomem_caps bound for PVH
> >>>   x86/iommu: account for IOMEM caps when populating dom0 IOMMU
> >>>     page-tables
> >>>   x86/dom0: be less restrictive with the Interrupt Address Range
> >>
> >> I'm uncertain whether to take this and "x86/pvh: workaround missing MMIO
> >> regions in dom0 p2m" for backport. The sole Fixes: tag is in patch 1 here.
> >> Thoughts?
> > 
> > At least the ones here would be helpful for the reported Lenovo
> > Thinkpad issue.  The PVH p2m addition would be nice IMO.
> 
> Are the ones here sufficient to deal with that issue? IOW iasn't the other
> 2-patch series also necessary?

For a PV dom0, yes, the patches here are enough.  For a PVH dom0 you
also need "x86/pvh: workaround missing MMIO regions in dom0 p2m".
Given that we now officially support PVH I think we would need to
backport the latter, to have parity between PV and PVH dom0.

Thanks, Roger.