Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 12/12] Nested Virtualization: hap-on-hap

[Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>]

On 04/29/11 11:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 05.04.11 at 17:48, Christoph Egger<Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > diff -r cfde4384be14 -r 28809c365861 xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/domain.h
> > ...
> > @@ -225,6 +227,7 @@ struct paging_vcpu {
> > #define MAX_CPUID_INPUT 40
> > typedef xen_domctl_cpuid_t cpuid_input_t;
> >
> > +#define MAX_NESTEDP2M 10
> > struct p2m_domain;
> > struct time_scale {
> >      int shift;
> > @@ -258,6 +261,12 @@ struct arch_domain
> >      struct paging_domain paging;
> >      struct p2m_domain *p2m;
> >
> > +    /* nestedhvm: translate l2 guest physical to host physical */
> > +    struct p2m_domain *nested_p2m[MAX_NESTEDP2M];
> > +    spinlock_t nested_p2m_lock;
> > +    int nested_p2m_locker;
> > +    const char *nested_p2m_function;
> > +
> >      /* NB. protected by d->event_lock and by irq_desc[irq].lock */
> >      int *irq_pirq;
> >      int *pirq_irq;
> Was there a specific reason to add this to struct arch_domain
> instead of struct hvm_domain? I.e. can any pf these fields be
> used on pv (or idle) domains?
The reason is that there is already a 'struct p2m_domain *p2m' field.
If that can be moved to struct hvm_domain then  nested_p2m can
definitely move over to there, too.

Christoph

--
---to satisfy European Law for business letters:
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85689 Dornach b. Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel