On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 11:56:52AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4 of 5] libxl: Add support for
> passing in the machine's E820 for PCI passthrough"):
> > Are we expecting that libxl users might want to modify the e820? If not
> > then why expose libxl_e820_alloc and libxl_e820_sanitize at all, just
> > add a flag to the libxl interface which says whether or not to provide a
> > host-derived e820.
> Well, also, why do we need that flag at all ? Are we trying to do
> something different with domains which might get pci passthrough ? If
Yes. Well, it does work OK even if you are _not_ doing PCI passthrough.
But the main users for this are the ones doing PCI passthrough.
> so then that's what should be specified at the libxl api, surely,
> rather than some opaque "write this rune to make it work" option.
OK. If I am understanding you guys right, you are saying, latch
it of the 'pci' option instead of this 'pci_hole' option.
And do not expose thse libxl_e820_* functions, but keep them
internal to the libxl code.
Xen-devel mailing list