Dan,
>From Xen summit, isn't it to be more P2M liked approach due to
consideration on driver domain and domain0 needs to get P2M for
VBD/VNIF? 
Don't remember there is decision on taking Hypercall only approach and
dropped P2M table lookup. Any justification here?
-Fred
Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
> (I'm sure you meant PPC *and* ia64 ;*)
>
> On just a quick skim, one thing to note:
>
> IIRC from the summit, domain0 and driver domains for
> neither PPC nor ia64 will have a p2m lookup table so
> a p2m translation will require a hypercall. So
> while virt_to_machine is cheap for domains on x86,
> it is not on PPC and ia64. If HYPERVISOR_share can
> take physical addresses instead of machine addresses
> (with Xen doing the phys_to_machine part of the
> translation), I think the code would work better
> for PPC and ia64, as well as better hide the
> virtual->physical->machine memory abstraction.
>
> Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel