Re: HVM save/restore issue

["Zhai, Edwin" <edwin.zhai@intel.com>]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 20/3/07 08:12, "Zhai, Edwin" <edwin.zhai@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > latest HVM save/restore break again:(
> > 
> > i use the memsize(the number in the xmexample.hvm) deduced from
> > 'memory_static_min' to calculate some HVM PFNs when restore.
> 
> Out of interest: why would you do this? I glanced upon the code you are
> referring to in xc_hvm_restore.c yesterday, and it struck me as particularly
> gross. All three PFNs (ioreq, bufioreq, xenstore) could be saved in the
> store after building the domain and then saved/restored as part of the
> Python-saved data. The situation is easier than for a PV guest because PFNs

save all PFNs directly is good idea. i have this code to keep create and restore 
process similar.
i'd like directly save/restore all pfns in xc_hvm_{save,restore}. is this your 
want?


> do not change across save/restore.
> 
> The more assumptions about memory layout we bake into xc_hvm_{save,restore}
> now, the more we have to unbake when the HVM memory map becomes more dynamic
> (balloon driver support, in particular). Making these assumptions to some
> extent for now is okay, but we should avoid it where possible.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 

-- 
best rgds,
edwin