Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [RFC][PATCH] [RESEND] support special guest optimisations in the hypervisor

[Tristan Gingold <tgingold@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 03:37:03PM +0200, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Freitag, 6. Juli 2007 schrieb Alex Williamson:
> > Dietmar, is there any reason to use "PV" or "HVM" in the name of the
> > feature bit?  It seems like if we had a OPTF_IDENT_MAP_HVM_REG7 and a
> > OPTF_IDENT_MAP_PV_REG7 that they wouldn't intersect in usage.  We could
> > therefore make them the same bit and drop the extra identifier.  In the
> > Windows case, I wonder if that should be two separate bits for region 4
> > & 5 instead of combining them into one.  Thanks,
> > 
> >     Alex
>   
> here are 2 new patches containing the discussed issues.
> - opt_feature_linux.patch
>   implements the usage of the hypercall from dom0/domU
> - opt_feature_xen.patch
>   for PV: implements the new hypercall  __HYPERVISOR_opt_feature.
>   for HVM: does this in set_os_type().
> 
> I added 3 features:
>   OPTF_IDENT_MAP_REG7, OPTF_IDENT_MAP_REG5, OPTF_IDENT_MAP_REG4
> 
> Please send comments or commit!

Sorry for this late remark but you should use the XEN_IA64_ prefix in front
of OPTF to prevent collision (although this can be done after applying the
patch).

Tristan.

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel