Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/7] xen/hvm: Xen PV extension of HVM initialization

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 03/01/2010 05:38 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> Why use this?  Why not just set the domain type to HVM, and leave the
>> "status" field as a bitset of available paravirtualizations?
>>      
> A annoy thing in pv drivers is that it would test if the domain type is _NOT_
> XEN_NATIVE. So set the domain to XEN_HVM_DOMAIN would result in PV driver
> initialization then probably panic. Maybe we can do something to PV drivers,
> as patch 6 and a part of patch 7.
>    

In that case, change them to specifically test for PV until they're 
ready to deal with an HVM environment.

>
> Part of pv_ops are overlapped. I would try if a new file would bring much
> duplicate.
>    

It shouldn't do; un-static things if necessary.

>>> +	.align PAGE_SIZE_asm
>>> +ENTRY(shared_info_page)
>>> +	.skip PAGE_SIZE_asm
>>> +.popsection
>>>        
>> Why does this need to be defined in asm?  Can't it be either allocated
>> or defined in C?
>>      
> I think we need a aligned page, as hypercall page.
>    

That can be declared in C with the __page_aligned_bss annotation.  And 
couldn't you dynamically allocate it with the bootmem allocator?

>> I think "status" is a misnomer here.  Isn't it specifically a set of PV
>> features which are active?
>>      
> Could you give a suggestion of the name? I am not a native English speaker...
>    

xen_hvm_pv_features.

     J