[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 04/19] libxl: introduce a PVH guest type
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:42:29PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:49:05AM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > The new guest type is introduced to the libxl IDL. libxl__domain_make > > is also modified to save the guest type, and libxl__domain_type is > > expanded to fetch that information when detecting guest type. > > > > This is required because the hypervisor only differentiates between PV > > and HVM guests, so libxl needs some extra information in order to > > differentiate between a HVM and a PVH guest. > > > > The new PVH guest type and it's options are documented on the xl.cfg > > it's -> its > > > > > =back > > > > +=head2 PVH Guest Specific Options > > + > > +=over 4 > > + > > +=item B<nestedhvm=BOOLEAN> > > + > > +Enable or disables guest access to hardware virtualisation features, > > +e.g. it allows a guest Operating System to also function as a > > +hypervisor. You may want this > > +option if you want to run another hypervisor (including another copy > > +of Xen) within a Xen guest or to support a guest Operating System > > +which uses hardware virtualisation extensions (e.g. Windows XP > > +compatibility mode on more modern Windows OS). > > +This option is disabled by default. > > Line wrapping is a bit strange. That's a verbatim copy of the original text, I should have reformatted it. > > > > libxl_rdm_reserve_strategy = Enumeration("rdm_reserve_strategy", [ > > @@ -589,6 +590,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[ > > # Use host's E820 for PCI > > passthrough. > > ("e820_host", libxl_defbool), > > ])), > > + ("pvh", None), > > So PVH type doesn't have its fields? No, patch 1 moves the fields relevant for PVH to the top-level structure. > I was thinking the resolution was to provide a type (an interface) with > its own fields (albeit identical to hvm fields), but I could be wrong. I think Ian didn't want to introduce a new PVH sub-struct, but I could be wrong. Introducing a new sub-struct would also make the code slightly more complex, since libxl would have to check for pv.bootloader and pvh.bootloader, or hvm.nested_hvm and pvh.nested_hvm depending on guest type. I guess we should defer the decision on the position of the fields until Ian comes back. Thanks, Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |