From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [v6][PATCH 0/7] xen: reserve RMRR to avoid conflicting MMIO/RAM Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:48:10 +0100 Message-ID: <54116FDA0200007800033AEC@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1410328190-6372-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <5410FD10.1020603@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5410FD10.1020603@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Kevin Tian , Tiejun Chen Cc: Yang Z Zhang , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , "stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 11.09.14 at 03:38, wrote: > On 2014/9/11 5:44, Tian, Kevin wrote: >>> From: Chen, Tiejun >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:50 PM >>> >> >> currently the confliction is detected absolutely. Do we need a way to allow >> the confliction if there is no device assigned at all? > > How to handle a hot-plug case when guest already boot? I think it may > not be worth distinguishing such fine gain, things will be becoming > complicated. In that case hotplug should fail. I'm very much in agreement with Kevin that an override should be possible if there's any risk of the detection done now could cause problems on certain systems (as pointed out before, I'm mainly concerned about RMRRs being defined in regions that overlap where the guest's BIOS wants to be placed). Jan