Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 09/14] xen/x86: split Dom0 build into PV and PVHv2

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.12.16 at 15:45, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:28:54PM +0000, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:07:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > >>> On 30.11.16 at 17:49, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > @@ -1655,6 +1653,28 @@ out:
>> > >      return rc;
>> > >  }
>> > >  
>> > > +static int __init construct_dom0_hvm(struct domain *d, const module_t 
>> > > *image,
>> > > +                                     unsigned long image_headroom,
>> > > +                                     module_t *initrd,
>> > > +                                     void *(*bootstrap_map)(const 
>> > > module_t *),
>> > > +                                     char *cmdline)
>> > > +{
>> > > +
>> > > +    printk("** Building a PVH Dom0 **\n");
>> > 
>> > Why again is it that you call the function "hvm" but mean "pvh"?
>> 
>> This was to differentiate between the current "pvh" functions in this file 
>> that
>> refer to PVHv1. I could name them pvhv2, but IMHO hvm seems clearer and
>> shorter.
> 
> Oh, and the other reason was that Xen doesn't really know the difference
> between a HVM guest and a PVHv2 guest, hence hvm felt more natural.

Xen certainly can tell the difference for Dom0, since a true HVM
Dom0 can't exist without a lot of work towards getting a device
model run somewhere to service it. I continue to think that "hvm"
in any of the names involved in this series is misleading.

Jan


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