Is there any reason other than lack of time during the initial port that this function is not using PHYSDEVOP_SET_IOBITMAP (like i386 is doing), but rather grants access to all I/O ports by calling sys_iopl(3)? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 2 Jun 2006, at 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote:> Is there any reason other than lack of time during the initial port > that this function is not using > PHYSDEVOP_SET_IOBITMAP (like i386 is doing), but rather grants access > to all I/O ports by calling sys_iopl(3)? JanNope. It''s something that needs bringing in sync with i386. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> 02.06.06 12:06 >>> > >On 2 Jun 2006, at 10:49, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Is there any reason other than lack of time during the initial port >> that this function is not using >> PHYSDEVOP_SET_IOBITMAP (like i386 is doing), but rather grants access >> to all I/O ports by calling sys_iopl(3)? Jan > >Nope. It''s something that needs bringing in sync with i386.Here we go. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> (if signing off on something almost entirely copied from elsewhere makes any sense at all) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel