Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] xen/pvh: Add memory map pointer to
 hvm_start_info struct
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
        Maran Wilson <maran.wilson@oracle.com>
Cc: andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, roger.pau@citrix.com, hch@infradead.org,
        x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, mingo@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com
References: <1512686715-11488-1-git-send-email-maran.wilson@oracle.com>
 <1512686715-11488-2-git-send-email-maran.wilson@oracle.com>
 <5A2A60130200007800195D10@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
 <94195d5b-fb04-0e27-4fd5-ab3c13b58d07@redhat.com>
 <5A2F9C260200007800196A92@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <93cafa4e-9053-119e-b4e2-1a1500539409@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:54:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A2F9C260200007800196A92@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2120
Lines: 44

On 12/12/2017 09:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 11.12.17 at 22:59, <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2017 09:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> + * The layout of each entry in the memory map table is as follows and no
>>>> + * padding is used between entries in the array:
>>>> + *
>>>> + *  0 +----------------+
>>>> + *    | addr           | Base address
>>>> + *  8 +----------------+
>>>> + *    | size           | Size of mapping
>>>> + * 16 +----------------+
>>>> + *    | type           | E820_TYPE_xxx
>>>> + * 20 +----------------|
>>> I'm not convinced of re-using E820 types here. I can see that this
>>> might ease the consumption in Linux, but I don't think there should
>>> be any connection to x86 aspects here - the data being supplied is
>>> x86-agnostic, and Linux'es placement of the header is also making
>>> no connection to x86 (oddly enough, the current placement in the
>>> Xen tree does, for a reason which escapes me).
>>
>> FWIW, e820 types are now part of the ACPI standard.  So using them is
>> not necessarily related to x86, and reasonably x86-agnostic.
> 
> Sort of - the description of it starts with "This interface is used in
> real mode only on IA-PC-based systems ..."

Note I said the e820 *types*.  While the interface is there for PC
compatibility, the ACPI address range types (AddressRangeMemory,
AddressRangeReserved, AddressRangeACPI, etc.) are exactly the e820 types.

> But it being there is useful in another way: It shows that there's
> an optional field making the full structure 64-bit aligned again. (It
> at the same time shows - I admit I had forgotten about this aspect -
> that the structure size isn't fixed in the first place, so consumers
> have to convert [truncate/extend] the output to their internal
> representation anyway, and hence there's even less of a reason
> to tie the proposed structure's layout to the E820 one.)

My point was that the e820 types are okay to use in an
architecture-agnostic way in my opinion.  The layout only matters so
much, as there aren't many ways to encode a memory map (note I do agree
about that alignment dword).

Paolo