Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10/17] PVH xen: introduce vmx_pvh.c and pvh.c

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 26.04.13 at 03:16, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:36:56 +0100 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On 25.04.13 at 02:57, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I am not sure I understant what you mean by copying hypercall_table. You
>>> mean copy all the calls in this table above from entry.S?  
> 
>>Yes - memcpy() the whole table, then overwrite the (few) entries
>>you need to overwrite. After all, in the long run adding a new
>>hypercall ought to "just work" for PVH (and in most cases even for
> 
> How would a poor soul who is trying to find all callers of do_xxx()
> find it then? And is it really that often that hypercalls are added
> that it is such a big deal?

It's no that often, but I nevertheless dislike that redundancy.
Ideally there would be just one hypercall table (not considering
the compat case, which has to have a different one because of
the different calling convention), and the hypercall handlers
would take care of the details...

Jan


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