> -----Original Message----- > From: Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU [mailto:ppircal...@bitdefender.com] > Sent: 08 January 2019 16:14 > To: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Wei Liu > <wei.l...@citrix.com>; Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>; Konrad > Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>; George Dunlap > <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Ian > Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com>; Tim (Xen.org) <t...@xen.org>; Julien > Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Tamas K Lengyel <ta...@tklengyel.com>; Jan > Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Roger Pau Monne <roger....@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 4/6] vm_event: Use slotted channels > for sync requests. > > On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 15:08 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, for the current vm_event implementation, other than using the > > > hvm_params to specify the ring page gfn, I couldn't see any reason > > > why > > > it should be limited to HVM guests only. Is it feasible to assume > > > the > > > vm_event mechanism will not ever be extended to PV guests? > > > > > > > Unless you limit things to HVM (and PVH) guests then I guess you'll > > run into the same page ownership problems that ioreq server ran into > > (due to a PV guest being allowed to map any page assigned to it... > > including those that may be 'resources' it should not be able to see > > directly). Any particular reason why you'd definitely want to support > > pure PV guests? > > > > Paul > > No, but at this point I just want to make sure I'm not limiting the > vm_events usage.
Ok, but given that a framework (i.e. ioreq) exists for HVM/PVH guests then IMO it makes sense to target those guests first and then figure out how to make things work for PV later if need be. Paul > > Many thanks, > Petre _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
