Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server

From: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>
To: "Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>,
	Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@xen.org>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
	"zhiyuan.lv@intel.com" <zhiyuan.lv@intel.com>,
	"jun.nakajima@intel.com" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:15:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2aca9f74ae6741eebd94fc9923b75fe5@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57161058.7060000@linux.intel.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yu, Zhang [mailto:yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: 19 April 2016 12:03
> To: Paul Durrant; Jan Beulich; Wei Liu
> Cc: Kevin Tian; Keir (Xen.org); Andrew Cooper; Tim (Xen.org); George
> Dunlap; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; zhiyuan.lv@intel.com;
> jun.nakajima@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename
> p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/19/2016 12:58 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of
> Jan
> >> Beulich
> >> Sent: 18 April 2016 17:47
> >> To: Paul Durrant
> >> Cc: Kevin Tian; Keir (Xen.org); Andrew Cooper; Tim (Xen.org); George
> >> Dunlap; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com;
> >> zhiyuan.lv@intel.com; jun.nakajima@intel.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename
> >> p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server
> >>
> >>>>> Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com> 04/18/16 6:45 PM >>>
> >>> The original patch was posted before the cut-off IIRC so I'm not sure
> >>> of the policy regarding freeze-exceptions.
> >>
> >>    It was submitted before the feature freeze, yes, but didn't make it in by
> >> code freeze. So it's my understanding that an exception would be
> needed.
> >>
> >
> > Ok. Thanks for the clarification. IMO getting this in is worth the freeze
> exception... it's a shame p2m_mmio_write_dm made it into 4.6.1. It needs to
> go before it proliferates any further.
> >
> 
> Thanks, Paul.
> 
> So I suppose the only place we need change for this patch is
> for hvmmem_type_t, which should be defined like this?
> 
> typedef enum {
>      HVMMEM_ram_rw,             /* Normal read/write guest RAM */
>      HVMMEM_ram_ro,             /* Read-only; writes are discarded */
>      HVMMEM_mmio_dm,            /* Reads and write go to the device model */
> #if __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__ >= 0x00040700
>      HVMMEM_ioreq_server
> #else
>      HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm
> #endif
> } hvmmem_type_t;
> 
> Besides, does 4.7 still accept freeze exception? It would be great
> if we can get an approval for this.

I talked to Wei earlier and he is happy to give a freeze exception to this change.

  Paul

> 
> Thanks
> Yu
> 
> >    Paul
> >
> >> Jan
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Xen-devel mailing list
> >> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> >
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel