From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754216Ab2CZGbr (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:31:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57083 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753158Ab2CZGbp (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:31:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:31:48 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Joerg Roedel , Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC dontapply] kvm_para: add mmio word store hypercall Message-ID: <20120326063148.GA27952@redhat.com> References: <20120325220518.GA27879@redhat.com> <4F6FA972.9050103@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F6FA972.9050103@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 04:25:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/25/2012 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > We face a dilemma: IO mapped addresses are legacy, > > so, for example, PCI express bridges waste 4K > > of this space for each link, in effect limiting us > > to 16 devices using this space. > > That is *only* if they are physical devices on PCIe links. For virtual > devices you have no such limitation. Why don't we? We emulate pci express with exact same limitations for virtual and physical devices. > What is the problem again? > > -hpa > > -- > H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center > I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.