On Tuesday 17 August 2010 09:54:34 Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On 17/08/2010 08:19, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> xc_get_hvm_param(xch, domid, HVM_PARAM_PAE_ENABLED, &pae);
> >>> is_pae = !!pae;
> >>> + xc_get_hvm_param(xch, domid, HVM_PARAM_NESTEDHVM, &nestedhvm);
> >> If you insist to support cross vendor nested virtualization, I would
> >> like to suggest we have multiple options for configuration: VMX,
> >> SVM, or HW.
> >> VMX and SVM option is for what situation that the user want to
> >> enforce the guest VMX/SVM features regardless of underlying
> >> hardware, while HW means to implements same with underlying
> >> virtualization feature in guest. In this way, it provides room for
> >> either cross vendor nested virtualization or natively virtualization.
> > We don't want cross-vendor nested virt, ever. So a simple boolean is
> > fine imo.
> OK, got it. That is also what I believe to be.
> Under this situation, I would suggest Chris to re-shuffle his patch series
> which are primarily based on the assumption of supporting cross vendor
> nested virtualization.
What makes you think that I make this assumption?
I can't remember to have ever mentioned 'cross vendor nested virtualization'.
> The major part of so called common code in this patch series is SVM specific
> and should go to hvm/svm sub-directory.
This should no longer be the case in the last submission of the patch series.
I think, there may still be some nuances that are in your way to implement
nested virtualization for VMX.
Please go through the patch series and let me know which patch, file and
lines do not work for VMX and why.
---to satisfy European Law for business letters:
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach b. Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
Xen-devel mailing list