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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:56 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > +/* 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?
> 
> I don't think we should have a xen_domain_type pvh at all.
> If we really need it we should define it as a set of individual
> properties:
> 
> #define xen_pvh_domain() (xen_pv_domain() && \
>                           xen_feature(XENFEAT_auto_translated_physmap) && \
>                           xen_have_vector_callback)

Hopefully it won't be necessary but if it is then this seems like a good
idea to me.

Ian.



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