From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [RFC] When to use "domain creation flag" or "HVM param"? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:33:08 +0000 Message-ID: <54EF3CB4.3010408@linaro.org> References: <54EB88C3.1000503@terremark.com> <20150224102446.GA59683@deinos.phlegethon.org> <54EC61020200007800063035@mail.emea.novell.com> <54EC5760.1000807@citrix.com> <20150226105255.GA43834@deinos.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Lars Kurth , "Tim (Xen.org)" , Andrew Cooper Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , Ian Campbell , Don Slutz , xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi, On 26/02/15 11:09, Lars Kurth wrote: > Tim, Andrew, Jan, > it seems as if we are slowly coming to some conclusion on this thread. If > I am mistaken, I am wondering whether it would make sense to have an IRC > meeting with all the involved stake-holders and report back to the list. I'm not sure where I should answer... We have a similar problem on ARM where we have arch-specific information (GIC version, number of interrupts) which changes between each domain. On Xen 4.5, we took the approach to create a separate DOMCTL for passing information. It has to be called before any VCPUs is created (DOMCTL_set_max_vcpus) and make the code more complicate to handle because we have to defer some domain initialization. I took another approach for Xen 4.6 based on Jan suggestion [1]. A v3 as been send recently [2] and we had some discussion about what is the best approach. I hope this will help to sort out a good approach for both ARM and x86. Regards, [1] http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-11/msg00522.html [2] http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-01/msg01184.html -- Julien Grall