> -----Original Message----- > From: Petre Ovidiu PIRCALABU [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 08 January 2019 16:14 > To: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; Wei Liu > <[email protected]>; Razvan Cojocaru <[email protected]>; Konrad > Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>; George Dunlap > <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Ian > Jackson <[email protected]>; Tim (Xen.org) <[email protected]>; Julien > Grall <[email protected]>; Tamas K Lengyel <[email protected]>; Jan > Beulich <[email protected]>; Roger Pau Monne <[email protected]> > 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 [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
