>>> 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
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to