Re: Vanilla Linux 64-bit paravirt guest support

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 09:25 -0500, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>     
>>> s what we're actually shipping for F-9. It includes the x86_64 work,
>>> but some other paravirt_ops patches too, most of which are queued up
>>> upstream.
>>>       
>> What else do you have?  Hm.  I was really hoping to drop /proc/xen/...
>>     
>
> Okay, here's the list:
>
>     xen x86_64: Initial x86_64 support for Xen paravirt_ops
>
> Eduardo's x86_64 stuff
>
>     xen x86_64: Add 64 bit version of privcmd_hypercall()
>     xen: Add Xen's /sys/hypervisor interface
>     xen: Add /proc/xen/xenbus
>     xen: Add /proc/xen/privcmd
>     xen: Add /proc/xen/capabilities
>     xen: Add empty xenctrl module
>
> This is /proc/xen and /sys/hypervisor stuff pulled from the dom0 tree.
> In that tree we've got mostly full compatibility with the
> linux-2.6.18-xen userspace interfaces AFAIR.
>
> I probably don't need all of these for DomU, but I went for the safe bet
> of including anything that userspace might be relying on.
>
> Happy for us to drop /proc/xen in the future - this is just a "get
> things going" thing.
>   

I'd rather fix userspace now, rather than let anyone get the impression 
that /proc/xen/ is going to be a supported interface.  We'll probably 
have to end up making /proc/xen/ exist for backwards compat, but we 
should make it clear that it isn't the canonical path.

Not that I've thought about where it should be.  /sys/hypervisor/xen?  
xendom0fs?

    J