On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20/05/2019 23:38, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 20/05/2019 22:26, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 May 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > This is not about privilege over the system: whoever will make the
> > > decision to ask the hypervisor to map the page will have all the
> > > necessary rights to do it.  If the user wants to map a given region,
> > > either because she knows what she is doing, because she is
> > > experimenting, or for whatever reason, I think she should be allowed. In
> > > fact, she can always do it by reverting the patch. So why make it
> > > inconvenient for her?
> > TBH, I am getting very frustrated on reviewing this series. We spent our
> > previous f2f meetings discussing reserved-memory in lengthy way. We also
> > agreed on a plan (see below), but now we are back on square one again...
> > 
> > Yes, a user will need to revert the patch. But then as you said the user
> > would know what he/she is doing. So reverting a patch is not going to be a
> > complication.
> > 
> > However, I already pointed out multiple time that giving permission is not
> > going to be enough. So I still don't see the value of having that in Xen
> > without an easy way to use it.
> > 
> > For reminder, you agreed on the following splitting the series in 3 parts:
> >     - Part 1: Extend iomem to support cacheability
> >     - Part 2: Partially support reserved-memory for Dom0 and don't give
> > iomem permission on them
> >     - Part 3: reserved-memory for guest
> > 
> > I agreed to merge part 1 and 2. Part 3 will be a start for a discussion how
> > this should be supported for guest. I also pointed out that Xilinx can carry
> > part 3 in their tree if they feel like too.
> 
> I just wanted to bump this as I haven't got any feedback on the way forward
> here.
> It should be possible get part 1 and 2 merged for Xen 4.13.

I am about to send an update with Part 2 only. I tried to address all
comments, the only one I didn't address (splitting a function into two),
I mentioned it explicitely.  Apologies if I missed anything, it wasn't
intentional.