RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Paravirt_ops/hybrid directions and next steps

["Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tristan:
        We are talking about pv_ops interface calling convention, not 
hypervisor API convention. It should not violate each other because we still 
have hypervisor wrapper which can do the convertion.

        One thing in my mind is that when we do pv_ops, we stand in hypervisor 
neutral position. Only when we implement xen hypervisor wrapper of pv_ops, we 
stand on Xen.

        But yes, since we use single source, dual compile to generate code in 
place. Actually those pv_cpu_asm_ops won't be used frequently, most of them are 
not used. So even we use this policy, it is very few place which may use a 
formal pv_ops for ASM code which imply the calling convention.  All IVT/gate 
table/page doesn't have this issue.

Thanks, eddie 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tristan Gingold [mailto:tgingold@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2008年3月11日 17:24
To: Dong, Eddie
Cc: Alex Williamson; xen-ia64-devel
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] Paravirt_ops/hybrid directions and next steps

Hi,

just a point about call convention: I don't think switching to PAL static
convention is a good idea as it doesn't work well with xen hyperprivop
because of banked registers.

Tristan.

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