Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

[Chris Wright]

* Gregory Haskins (gregory.haskins@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> What I am not clear on is how you would know to flag the address to
> begin with.

That's why I mentioned pv_io_ops->iomap() earlier.  Something I'd expect
would get called on IORESOURCE_PVIO type.  This isn't really transparent
though (only virtio devices basically), kind of like you're saying below.

> Here's a thought: "PV" drivers can flag the IO (e.g. virtio-pci knows it
> would never be a real device).  This means we route any io requests from
> virtio-pci though pv_io_ops->mmio(), but not unflagged addresses.  This
> is not as slick as boosting *everyones* mmio speed as Avi's original
> idea would have, but it is perhaps a good tradeoff between the entirely
> new namespace created by my original dynhc() proposal and leaving them
> all PF based.
>
> This way, its just like using my dynhc() proposal except the mmio-addr
> is the substitute address-token (instead of the dynhc-vector). 
> Additionally, if you do not PV the kernel the IO_COND/pv_io_op is
> ignored and it just slow-paths through the PF as it does today.  Dynhc()
> would be dependent  on pv_ops.
> 
> Thoughts?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/