From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Harper Subject: Re: [Xen-changelog] Create new vcpu_op() hypercall. Replaces old boot_vcpu() Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 13:42:36 -0500 Message-ID: <20051003184236.GF29825@us.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org * Xen patchbot -unstable [2005-10-03 13:16]: > # HG changeset patch > # User kaf24@firebug.cl.cam.ac.uk > # Node ID 85f92475b9437fcd10bf1ae105f53b0abe963050 > # Parent dd87869f877ca9c68c97f36b3870908fb279edb9 > Create new vcpu_op() hypercall. Replaces old boot_vcpu() > hypercall and vcpu-related schedop commands. > > Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser Both do_boot_vcpu() and now VCPU_CREATE rely on domU kernel playing nice and not making the hypercall more than has been indicated in the shared table when we built the domain (nr_vcpus). Wouldn't it be better to have the domain creation hypercall specify the number of vcpus for a domain (as well as a cpumap to indicate which physical cpus are to be used) and alloc vcpu structures at that point leaving the vcpu_ops() to get context and unpause the vcpu? If I put together a patch that mode the above change, would that be considered? -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx (512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253 ryanh@us.ibm.com