Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/8]: PVH: Basic and preparatory changes

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 19:46 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:59:14 +0100
> Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > It's good to see well split patches :)
> > But could you please send them inline next time?
> 
> Sorry, that was the intent. 

It seems like this was the only one which was attached instead of
inline, strange.

> > > diff --git a/include/xen/interface/xen.h
> > > b/include/xen/interface/xen.h index 0801468..1d5bc36 100644
> > > --- a/include/xen/interface/xen.h
> > > +++ b/include/xen/interface/xen.h
> > > @@ -493,6 +493,7 @@ struct dom0_vga_console_info {
> > >  /* These flags are passed in the 'flags' field of start_info_t. */
> > >  #define SIF_PRIVILEGED    (1<<0)  /* Is the domain privileged? */
> > >  #define SIF_INITDOMAIN    (1<<1)  /* Is this the initial control
> > > domain? */ +#define SIF_IS_PVINHVM    (1<<4)  /* Is it a PV running
> > > in HVM container? */ #define SIF_PM_MASK       (0xFF<<8) /* reserve
> > > 1 byte for xen-pm options */ 
> > >  typedef uint64_t cpumap_t;
> > 
> > I would avoid adding SIF_IS_PVINHVM, an x86 specific concept, into a
> > generic xen.h interface file. 

Is PVH actually more like a XENFEAT style thing?

Is there actually anywhere which wants to know specifically about PVH
rather than some more specific property which a PVH domain happen to
has?

> > > +/* xen_pv_domain check is necessary as start_info ptr is null in
> > > HVM. Also,
> > > + * note, xen PVH domain shares lot of HVM code */
> > > +#define xen_pvh_domain()       (xen_pv_domain()
> > > &&                     \
> > > +                         (xen_start_info->flags &
> > > SIF_IS_PVINHVM))
> >  
> > Also here.
> 
> Hmm.. I can move '#define xen_pvh_domain()' to x86 header, easy. But,
> not sure how to define SIF_IS_PVINHVM then? I could put SIF_IS_RESVD in
> include/xen/interface/xen.h, and then do 
> #define SIF_IS_PVINHVM SIF_IS_RESVD in an x86 file.
> 
> What do you think about that?

Should PVH actually be a new value in the xen_domain_type enum?

> 
> thanks
> Mukesh
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel