From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 03/16] xen/passthrough: extend hypercall to support rdm reservation policy Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:57:00 +0800 Message-ID: <55A3532C.8030601@intel.com> References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1436420047-25356-4-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <559FFA6C020000780008F998@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <559FFA6C020000780008F998@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , George Dunlap Cc: Kevin Tian , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Andrew Cooper , Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Yang Zhang , Aravind Gopalakrishnan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> Also, passing in RELAXED in locations where the flag is completely >> ignored (such as when removing mappings) doesn't really make any >> sense. >> >> On the whole I think it would be better if you removed the RELAXED >> flag for both removals and for hardware domains. > > But what would he pass instead? Or wait - iirc I had even suggested > a way to do so by combining two arguments. Would need to go dig > that out, because I think the idea got dropped without good reason. > No, I don't drop this directly. http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg01877.html I went there with one optional way you provided that I just need to a brief comment. And I also had reply at that moment. http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-06/msg02101.html Thanks Tiejun