From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall
 to support rdm reservation policy
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:01:32 +0100
Message-ID: <559FFA6C020000780008F998@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1436420047-25356-4-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<CAFLBxZbZkS3ZRyTC-g07MYNCDDm4Tb3rCB2oJRzx3qVHxxEvPA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFLBxZbZkS3ZRyTC-g07MYNCDDm4Tb3rCB2oJRzx3qVHxxEvPA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>, Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@amd.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 10.07.15 at 15:26, <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> I also said that if we went with anything other than STRICT that we'd
> need to check to make sure that the domain really was the hardware
> domain before proceeding, in case the assumption that pdev->domain ==
> hardware_domain ever changed.  (Perhaps with an ASSERT -- Jan, what do
> you think?)

Yes, such an ASSERT() seems okay/desirable.

> Also, passing in RELAXED in locations where the flag is completely
> ignored (such as when removing mappings) doesn't really make any
> sense.
> 
> On the whole I think it would be better if you removed the RELAXED
> flag for both removals and for hardware domains.

But what would he pass instead? Or wait - iirc I had even suggested
a way to do so by combining two arguments. Would need to go dig
that out, because I think the idea got dropped without good reason.

Jan