From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BC1C433E7 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 18:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36472222C for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 18:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="XYM/rqaF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387396AbgJNSEu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:04:50 -0400 Received: from esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com ([216.71.145.155]:23940 "EHLO esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727071AbgJNSEu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:04:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1602698691; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QP9dZ/kf6WxmC+XFLjXj3iwd2bvWj8WJ3e4EPYelksU=; b=XYM/rqaF0FOUMix2FVuHFpG2TNZLge9C2lwZsIMvq0LSD3flDf0ASZ5U RuLPJ5Yk9JIDyxwxRZGoMwZwJTBlC1J3Nnn0QXcIXElTLbuZJD0Ohqg5J bMPjp9BhMUVpQm7UcHVYGwsCJvFRhc35o1/aqcbYz8ityVV4hX7I0a/ro M=; Authentication-Results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: RkRU6LoFb+K0uroA17V3eGSGvjuUUGMUujSWCqKRxmtq2qsv7vOw8BkkHt9zfs7MM0a9cL4/Ft 2dUiIVTILpDeiiulU9gHbgx2gjg8+21xfs5GSiPybMgsipLEe8gUsLsaJNrwhMSLLMQsemLMrK wdiahS+UH2PIC8/GMR79mm8Bs/hMc8XQYiz5aXGXmdH8ykSz0VWu7I/DAiuKR6KfhXRT9DtM9v zbRh/CILhefBnCwff+hwhCnTEGRqgmAYgX+34s8k22jyocg6vnUZJwOQKaxQIPzmtyJ671KRly GoE= X-SBRS: 2.5 X-MesageID: 28991967 X-Ironport-Server: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,375,1596513600"; d="scan'208";a="28991967" Subject: Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM][PATCH 0/2] Remove Xen PVH dependency on PCI To: Jason Andryuk , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , "Stefano Stabellini" , CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , References: <20201014175342.152712-1-jandryuk@gmail.com> From: Andrew Cooper Message-ID: <4973553f-fad2-83b9-fa19-26370ced2c2d@citrix.com> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:04:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201014175342.152712-1-jandryuk@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS01.citrite.net (10.69.22.112) To FTLPEX02CL05.citrite.net (10.13.108.178) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 14/10/2020 18:53, Jason Andryuk wrote: > A Xen PVH domain doesn't have a PCI bus or devices, [*] Yet. > so it doesn't need PCI support built in. Untangling the dependences is a good thing, but eventually we plan to put an optional PCI bus back in, e.g. for SRIOV usecases. ~Andrew