From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:33:57 +0800
Message-ID: <55A91255.1010901@intel.com>
References: <55A35B5E.3000805@intel.com>
	<20150713114145.GF4108@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A46575.5020607@intel.com>
	<20150714092915.GC4152@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A85758.2010702@intel.com>
	<20150717091726.GG12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A8C9E7.7080702@intel.com>
	<20150717093041.GI12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<20150717132102.GL12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55A922890200007800092788@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<20150717140157.GM12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150717140157.GM12455@zion.uk.xensource.com>
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: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "ian.campbell@citrix.com" <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, AndrewCooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Yong Y Wang <yong.y.wang@intel.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>> My main disagreement here continues to be that we're talking
>> about a bug fix, and hence I don't view this as needing a freeze
>> exception in the first place (at least not at this point in time). Yes,
>> the bug fix involves adding code that looks like a new feature, but
>> that happens with bug fixes.
>>
>
> Fine then. I'm not going to argue feature vs bug fix at this stage.  The
> final resolution is still the same. Tiejun can continue working on this
> next week.
>

Wei and Jan,

Really thanks for your clarification to this case.

Looks two key problems should be addressed as follows:

#1. mmio conflicting with RDM

As Jan suggested George's patch is fine in this phrase.

#2. construct e820

I need to understand what Jan comments properly than resend a patch.

I'm going to finalize these things next week as early as possible.

Again, thanks for all guys's help and I can't walk here without any your 
guides.

Thanks
Tiejun