WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] RE: The memory type of non-RAM address is WB by default?

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: The memory type of non-RAM address is WB by default?
From: "Su, Disheng" <disheng.su@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:22:16 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Su, Disheng" <disheng.su@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:22:46 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C52610FF.28596%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <F4AE3CDE26E0164D9E990A34F2D4E0DF0926DB87AD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C52610FF.28596%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Ack08sfKD6uwiNRuQZe6GWvOlYpURQAAdtTiAABVSyAAAFQiVgAAQciAAACJ69MCgtPQYA==
Thread-topic: The memory type of non-RAM address is WB by default?
Hi Keir/Dexuan,
        Attached the patch, which only checks the conflict in RAM range.
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 23/10/08 11:24, "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Keir Fraser wrote:
>>> Well, one approach would be not to warn! :-)
>>> 
>>> Seriously: for anything which is not guest RAM, the host should
>>> really know best what memory type it should be mapped as (probably
>>> UC or WC). Hence why mess around validating a guest-requested memory
>>> type?
>> This method looks good. I'll try to make a patch.
> 
> Thanks. I agree this is probably the best approach.
> 
>  -- Keir



Best Regards,
Disheng, Su

Attachment: check_ram_address_only.patch
Description: check_ram_address_only.patch

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>