Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v12 08/21] pvh: vmx-specific changes

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.09.13 at 18:25, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static int pvh_check_requirements(struct vcpu *v)
> +{
> +    u64 required, tmpval = real_cr4_to_pv_guest_cr4(mmu_cr4_features);
> +
> +    if ( !paging_mode_hap(v->domain) )
> +    {
> +        printk(XENLOG_G_INFO "HAP is required for PVH guest.\n");
> +        return -EINVAL;
> +    }
> +    if ( !cpu_has_vmx_ept )
> +    {
> +        printk(XENLOG_G_INFO "PVH: CPU does not have EPT support\n");
> +        return -ENOSYS;

While I realize that this was that was perhaps in what you took
from Mukesh, I think this and similar uses of -ENOSYS are
misguided; -EOPNOTSUPP would seem more appropriate.

> +        /* PVH: I don't think these are necessary */
> +        v->arch.hvm_vmx.exec_control &= ~CPU_BASED_VIRTUAL_NMI_PENDING;
> +        vmentry_ctl &= ~VM_ENTRY_LOAD_GUEST_EFER;

Particularly these two would be nice to be confirmed by our VMX
maintainers, who you should have Cc-ed.

Jan


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