Re: [Xen-devel] Implementing mem-access for PV guests

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

At 19:44 +0000 on 15 May (1368647046), Aravindh Puthiyaparambil (aravindp) 
wrote:
> As I am looking at code, I see most of the mem_event / mem_access
> naming is HVM specific. Given that I am enabling it for PV, shouldn't
> the names be changed to something more generic?
> 
> On the tools side, I was thinking of renaming:
> HVMMEM_access* to XENMEM_*
> HVMOP_*_access to XENMEM_*_access

If you like -- presumably you'll be adding a new hypercall interface
for the PV guests; we can use that for both and keep the old hvm_op
hypercall interface as an alias.

> Create xc_domain_*_access() or xc_*_access() and make them wrappers
> that call xc_hvm_*_access() or vice-versa. Then move the functions to
> xc_domain.c or xc_mem_access.c. This way I am hoping the exisiting
> APIs will still work.

Sounds about right, though I'd want a toolstack maintainer's opinion.

> Something similar would have to be done in the hypervisor side as most
> of the mem_access hypercalls falls under HVM ops and do_hvm_op(). What
> should I do there? Fold everything in to memory ops? Please advise.

Yes, I think a memory op would be OK, or a domctl. 

Tim.

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