WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] PV-on-HVM driver for IPF

Hi,

You (Tristan.Gingold) said:
>>>>   I will post patches of PV-on-HVM for IPF.
>>>>
>>>>   We wrote the patch under this consideration:
>>>>
>>>>    * Expand hvm_op hypercall
>>>>      + Introduce HVMOP_setup_shared_info_page
>>>>        - A page allocated on HVM-guest OS is swapped original
>>>> shared_info page with this hypercall.
>>>>        - In x86 code, original shared_info page is used after pv-on-hvm
>>>>          setup with remapping feature in arch depend
>>>> HYPERVISOR_memory_op. But, we can't implement same feature for IPF, thus
>>>> we select to implement with this method.
>>>
>>> Can you explain why you can't reuse the HYPERVISOR_memory_op hcall ?
>>> It isn't clear for me.
>>
>>   In x86 code (xen/arch/x86/mm.c), it uses only virtual space of page frame
>> allocated by GuestOS, and remaps the vitual space to original share_info
>> page frame. But, we can't find same method for IPF.
>>
>>   Can you suggest us about the remapping method ?
> I simply wonder why did you create a new hypercall.  You could have reuse the 
> same hypercall, using a slighly different semantic.  But it doesn't really 
> matter.

  I think that the functions which have diffect semantic should be called
with the different names.

>>> +            if (likely(IS_XEN_HEAP_FRAME(virt_to_page(pgaddr)))) {
>>> +                free_domheap_page(virt_to_page(pgaddr));
>>> +                free_xenheap_page((void *)pgaddr);
>>> +            }
>>> +            else {
>>> +                put_page(virt_to_page(pgaddr));
>>> +            }
>>> May create a function to be called by gnttab_setup_table and
>>> setup_shared_info_page.
>>
>>   I think that these function are for only VT-i domain, thus I used
>> vmx_ prefix. What do you think about it ?
> Sorry I was not clear enough.
> This block appears in both function.  I'd suggest to create a function to 
> avoid duplicating code.

  Sorry, I had misunderstood your suggestion.

  I agree. I'll correct it.

Thanks,
-- Tsunehisa Doi

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