[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] xen: introduce VCPUOP_register_runstate_phys_memory_area hypercall
- To: <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 00:28:51 -0600
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "andrii_anisov@xxxxxxxx" <andrii_anisov@xxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:29:03 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
>>> On 14.06.19 at 18:23, <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14.06.19 18:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 14.06.19 at 17:11, <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 14.06.19 17:39, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> After all they have exactly the same data...
>>>
>>> Yes, but normal guests should use only one interface.
>>
>> I thought it had been clarified already that normal guests can very
>> well use both interfaces, just not both at the same time: Boot loader
>> and OS could disagree in this regard, as the prime example.
>
> I missed "at the same time".
>
> We may require existing runstate area unregistering if the system is aware
> of it. But it is for the new interface.
> The old one has no documentation about the unregistering. The implicit way
> is known to us, but not known to users.
> How to solve the clash?
And once again I'm not sure what to answer, considering that I've
already outlined a possible model (without any explicit unregistration).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
