From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59609)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <JBeulich@suse.com>) id 1SC9Pu-0007TN-Kh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:53:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <JBeulich@suse.com>) id 1SC9Ps-0002qh-UB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:52:58 -0400
Received: from nat28.tlf.novell.com ([130.57.49.28]:22341)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <JBeulich@suse.com>) id 1SC9Ps-0002qM-KP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:52:56 -0400
Message-Id: <4F7082F6020000780007AE77@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:53:42 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
References: <cover.1332430810.git.julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<2187e535bf91f5f650401a4e08e0e795003ad2aa.1332430810.git.julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<4F6C3FD9020000780007A717@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<4F7061F4.8000901@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7061F4.8000901@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [XEN][RFC PATCH 01/15] hvm: Modify
 interface to support multiple ioreq server
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Julian Pidancet <julian.pidancet@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>

>>> On 26.03.12 at 14:32, Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 03/23/2012 08:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> +#define HVMOP_register_pcidev 24
>>> +struct xen_hvm_register_pcidev {
>>> +    domid_t domid;	   /* IN - domain to be serviced */
>>> +    servid_t id;	   /* IN - handle from HVMOP_register_ioreq_server =
*/
>>> +    uint16_t bdf;	   /* IN - pci */
>>>     =20
>> Can we please avoid the mistake of again not surfacing the PCI
>> segment in interface definitions, even if it may be required to be
>> zero for the immediate needs?
>>   =20
>=20
> What do you hear by surfacing the PCI segment ?
> Do I need to add the PCI domain ?

"domain" and "segment" appear to be used interchangeably.

Jan