On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:51:57AM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > Hi, Roger! > Could you please take a look at the below? > Jan was questioning the per BAR range set approach, so it > is crucial for the maintainer (you) to answer here.
I'm open to suggestions to using something different than a rangeset per BAR, but lacking any concrete proposal I think using rangesets is fine. One possible way might be to extend rangesets so that private data could be stored for each rangeset range, but that would then make merging operations impossible, likewise splitting ranges would be troublesome. We could then store the physical BAR address in that private data and use the rangeset addresses as guest physical address space. It's unclear however that this approach would be any better than just using a rangeset per BAR. Thanks, Roger.
