Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 04/12] xen/x86: split Dom0 build into PV and PVHv2

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/08/16 12:36, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:57:08PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 29/07/16 17:28, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> Split the Dom0 builder into two different functions, one for PV (and classic
>>> PVH), and another one for PVHv2. Introduce a new command line parameter,
>>> dom0hvm in order to request the creation of a PVHv2 Dom0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  xen/arch/x86/setup.c        |  9 +++++++++
>> A patch to docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown please.
> OK, I wasn't really sure if we want to introduce a new command line option, 
> or just use dom0pvh. In any case I will add it, we can always alias dom0pvh 
> to dom0pvh (or the other way around) when classic PVH support is 
> removed.

I am not terribly fussed, so long as the docs match the hypervisor
behaviour :)

>  
>>>  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c
>>> index 09d79be..c0ef40f 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c
>>> @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static int __init setup_permissions(struct domain *d)
>>>      return rc;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -int __init construct_dom0(
>>> +static int __init construct_dom0_pv(
>>>      struct domain *d,
>>>      const module_t *image, unsigned long image_headroom,
>>>      module_t *initrd,
>>> @@ -1647,6 +1647,31 @@ out:
>>>      return rc;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static int __init construct_dom0_hvm(struct domain *d, const module_t 
>>> *image,
>>> +                                     unsigned long image_headroom,
>>> +                                     module_t *initrd,
>>> +                                     void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t 
>>> *),
>>> +                                     char *cmdline)
>>> +{
>>> +
>>> +    printk("** Building a PVH Dom0 **\n");
>> Some naming curiosities here, especially given the parameter name.
> Hm, AFAIK we agreed on keeping the 'PVH' naming, but since internally Xen 
> has no concept of 'PVH' I think the constructor is better named as HVM (and 
> in fact if PVH wasn't there before I would just consider this a HVM Dom0).
>
> If people prefer HVM I can certainly change it, but I think it's going to 
> get messy.

Fair enough.

~Andrew

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