Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/9] x86/pvh: Set PVH guest's mode in XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 24.06.15 at 13:42, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/24/2015 03:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 24.06.15 at 04:53, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 06/23/2015 09:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>>>> @@ -2320,12 +2320,7 @@ int hvm_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v)
>>>>>        v->arch.hvm_vcpu.inject_trap.vector = -1;
>>>>>    
>>>>>        if ( is_pvh_domain(d) )
>>>>> -    {
>>>>> -        v->arch.hvm_vcpu.hcall_64bit = 1;    /* PVH 32bitfixme. */
>>>>> -        /* This is for hvm_long_mode_enabled(v). */
>>>>> -        v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_efer = EFER_LMA | EFER_LME;
>>>>>            return 0;
>>>>> -    }
>>>> With this removed, is there any guarantee that hvm_set_mode()
>>>> will be called for each vCPU?
>>> IIUIC, toolstack is required to call XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size which
>>> results in a call to switch_compat/native(), which loop over all VCPUs,
>>> calling set_mode.
>> I don't recall this being a strict requirement. I think a PV 64-bit
>> guest would start fine without.
> 
> We do call it via libxl__build_pv() -> xc_dom_boot_mem_init() -> 
> arch_setup_mem_init() -> x86_compat().

Right, that's in our tool stack. The question though was whether it's
a requirement to be called.

Jan


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