Re: [Xen-devel] Patches for v3.8

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:28:34 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>> On 29.11.12 at 02:50, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:24:04 +0000
> > "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>> On 27.11.12 at 22:31, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> >> >>> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Mukesh Rathor (6):
> >> >       xen/pvh: Support ParaVirtualized Hardware extensions.
> >> >       xen/pvh: Extend vcpu_guest_context, p2m, event, and XenBus.
> >> >       xen/pvh: Implement MMU changes for PVH.
> >> >       xen/pvh: bootup and setup (E820) related changes.
> >> >       xen/pvh: balloon and grant changes.
> >> >       xen/pvh: /dev/xen/privcmd changes.
> >> 
> >> As said before - I don't think it is a good idea to push the kernel
> >> side changes into an official release when the hypervisor side ones
> >> didn't even get an initial review yet.
> > 
> > On the xen patch side, I've refrshed my tree. I realized I had
> > undone the union of pv_domain and hvm_domain since I used fields
> > from both. I'm now redoing that to make that a union and add a
> > struct in hvm_domain for fields from pv_domain that are used by
> > PVH. 
> 
> Perhaps better to move out of the union just the shared fields?
> 

Well, not sure which is better. Those fields are not many, and only used
by PVH and not HVM. So, for now I just put it part of hvm_vcpu.
That way it's less confusing and obvious to anyone reading the code or
debugging. BTW, earlier I meant pv/hvm_vcpu and not pv/hvm_domain. If
it makes struct size smaller I could create pv_pvh_vcpu {} and put
those fields there, but that involves lot of unnecessary code changes.

thanks
mukesh

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