Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 06/17] [V3]PVH xen: Introduce PVH guest type

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.04.13 at 03:02, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ dbg_rw_guest_mem(dbgva_t addr, dbgbyte_t *buf, int len, 
> struct domain *dp,
>  
>          pagecnt = min_t(long, PAGE_SIZE - (addr & ~PAGE_MASK), len);
>  
> -        mfn = (dp->is_hvm
> +        mfn = (is_hvm_domain(dp)
>                 ? dbg_hvm_va2mfn(addr, dp, toaddr, &gfn)
>                 : dbg_pv_va2mfn(addr, dp, pgd3));

Doesn't this rather need to be !is_pv_domain()?

> @@ -256,10 +256,9 @@ struct arch_domain
>  
>      struct list_head pdev_list;
>  
> -    union {
> -        struct pv_domain pv_domain;
> -        struct hvm_domain hvm_domain;
> -    };
> +    /* PVH : pvh uses fields from both pv and hvm, hence not a union */
> +    struct pv_domain pv_domain;
> +    struct hvm_domain hvm_domain;

This isn't nice, as it needlessly grows struct domain (limited to a
page in size). And I think I said before that I'm of the opinion that
you ought to pull out the shared fields, but leave the private ones
in place. Of course, unless that's _almost all_ of them...

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel