On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:02:17PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 08/12/2021 15:57, Juergen Gross wrote: > > On 08.12.21 16:54, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> On 08/12/2021 14:22, Juergen Gross wrote: > >>> On 08.12.21 14:43, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>>> On 08/12/2021 08:47, Juergen Gross wrote: > >>>>> The HVM parameters for pre-allocated event channels should be set in > >>>>> libxenguest, like it is done for PV guests and for the pre-allocated > >>>>> ring pages. > >>>>> > >>>>> Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure that we have the concept of pre-allocated ring pages. > >>>> > >>>> For PV, we have: > >>>> > >>>> dom->console_pfn = xc_dom_alloc_page(dom, "console"); > >>>> if ( dom->console_pfn == INVALID_PFN ) > >>>> return -1; > >>>> xc_clear_domain_page(dom->xch, dom->guest_domid, > >>>> xc_dom_p2m(dom, dom->console_pfn)); > >>>> > >>>> and for HVM, we have: > >>>> > >>>> dom->console_pfn = special_pfn(SPECIALPAGE_CONSOLE); > >>>> xc_clear_domain_page(dom->xch, dom->guest_domid, > >>>> dom->console_pfn); > >>> > >>> Isn't that a pre-allocation? The PFNs are fixed at boot time of the > >>> guest. > >> > >> Yeah, but "allocated in the library call we're making" is not the same > >> as "caller has to allocate and pass details in". > >> > >> I would not class the frames as "pre-allocated" in this context. > >> "allocated" sure, so perhaps "just like it is done for PV guests, and > >> the ring pages that libxenguest allocates" ? > > > > Fine with me. > > > > Should I send another round, or can this be changed when committing? > > Fixed on commit. No need to resend just for this. > > Question is whether Anthony has any view, or whether my R-by is good enough?
Patch looks good, so: Acked-by: Anthony PERARD <[email protected]> Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD
