>>> On 02.03.18 at 17:25, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > On 02/03/18 16:18, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 02.03.18 at 17:04, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> The proper way to do this is indeed by a nominated (guest) physical >>> address, at which point Xen can make all/any updates at times of its >>> choosing, and the guests pagetable/permissions state at an instantaneous >>> moment don't matter. >>> >>> If you've got time to do this, then please do. It will be a definite >>> improvement. >> >> Just to be avoid unnecessary effort in the wrong direction: I don't >> think you can alter the current interface. You'd have to add a new >> one, and we could then deprecate (but never abandon) the current >> one. > > I was only planning to store the guest physical address rather than the > virtual address as we do today. Is that considered as an alteration of > the current interface?
Yes, it is, as an existing PV kernel could deliberately alter the mappings underlying the linear address it has handed us. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenemail@example.com https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel