Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/compat: Test both PV and PVH guests for compat mode

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/12/2015 02:23 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 11.08.15 at 19:21, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 08/11/2015 05:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 24.07.15 at 19:54, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 07/23/2015 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > Plus - is this in line with what the tools are doing? Aren't they
> > > > > assuming !PV <=> native format context? I.e. don't you need
> > > > > to treat differently v->domain == current->domain and its
> > > > > opposite? Roger btw. raised a similar question on IRC earlier
> > > > > today...
> > > > Not sure I understand this. You mean for copying 64-bit guest's info
> > > > into 32-bit dom0?
> > > Basically yes - tool stack and guest invocations may need to
> > > behave differently.
> > This being PVH-"classic" it follows exactly the PV path (both in tools
> > and the hypervisor). Wouldn't PV be broken then as well?
> Note that I raised a question originally (still seen above) instead
> of asking for a specific change. In the end all I'm asking for is that
> you make changes in the hypervisor in a way compaible with tools
> expectations, or adjust the tools accordingly.
So the tools have been adjusted (in the 32-bit path) to make PVH behave 
similarly to PV. This is obviously not what we need to move forward with 
no-dm PVH but this whole series is really tries to bring 32-bit PVH to 
parity with (existing) 64-bit PVH.
> And of course you
> should keep in mind what "no-dm" will want (i.e. perhaps sync with
> Roger), such that we don't end up with guest exposed interface
> behavior not suitable for the long term targets we have.

I suspect the notion of is_pvh_32bit_domain() (which is what this patch 
adds) will be irrelevant in no-dm world.
-boris

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