This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 13/13] Nested Virtualiztion: hap-on-hap

To: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 13/13] Nested Virtualiztion: hap-on-hap
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:53:58 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:00:34 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100910100309.GB29761@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <201009011718.44873.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> <20100908140451.GA23487@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201009091601.04316.Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> <1A42CE6F5F474C41B63392A5F80372B22A86CEE7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100910100309.GB29761@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: ActQz2GdaKfM67PjRSi2dP287MyQnwCOJCAg
Thread-topic: [PATCH 13/13] Nested Virtualiztion: hap-on-hap
Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 02:37 +0100 on 10 Sep (1284086227), Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> wording is always a challenge in nested virtualization :(
>> I have similar feeling and thinking. In all the explaination text, we
>> use the term l1 guest, l2 guest which makes everybody easy to
>> understand, but in the code we are avoiding those clear prefix both
>> here and in Qing's patch. How about we use l1/l2 prefix more to
>> explicitly differentiate among them? Just 2 cents, it may be too
>> later.
> That sounds like a good idea.  My only reservation is that it might be
> confusing since we already use l1 and l2 when naming levels of
> pagetables, so e.g. the shadow code has variables called l2gfn.
> Maybe we could use n0, n1, n2 for nesting levels instead?
Or l1g, l2g? Anyway, either is better to me and up to your decision. 

Xen-devel mailing list