From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Add flag to start info regarding virtual mapped p2m list Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:32:01 +0100 Message-ID: <54F58DA1.5000401@suse.com> References: <1425374993-32028-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <54F59ABD02000078000658FB@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YSk7Q-0005Pg-LX for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:32:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54F59ABD02000078000658FB@suse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: keir@xen.org, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, tim@xen.org, david.vrabel@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/03/2015 11:27 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.03.15 at 10:29, <"jgross@suse.com".non-mime.internet> wrote: >> In order to indicate the Xen tools capability to support the virtual >> mapped linear p2m list instead the 3 level mfn tree add a flag to the >> start_info page. >> >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross >> --- >> xen/include/public/xen.h | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/include/public/xen.h b/xen/include/public/xen.h >> index 3703c39..36c6d62 100644 >> --- a/xen/include/public/xen.h >> +++ b/xen/include/public/xen.h >> @@ -777,6 +777,8 @@ typedef struct start_info start_info_t; >> #define SIF_INITDOMAIN (1<<1) /* Is this the initial control domain? */ >> #define SIF_MULTIBOOT_MOD (1<<2) /* Is mod_start a multiboot module? */ >> #define SIF_MOD_START_PFN (1<<3) /* Is mod_start a PFN? */ >> +#define SIF_VIRT_P2M (1<<4) /* Does Xen understand a virt. mapped P->M */ >> + /* making the 3 level tree obsolete? */ >> #define SIF_PM_MASK (0xFF<<8) /* reserve 1 byte for xen-pm options */ >> >> /* > > Is there any reason why this can't be part of the tools patch (series) > actually going to make use of it? The main reason is I want to make use of it in the related kernel series first. And this requires the Xen header implementation. > Also I'm not particularly happy with the name, as it suggests to be > a statement about the initial P2M the guest gets handed - yet that > is always virtually mapped. SIF_PERMANENT_VIRT_P2M is getting a > little long I'm afraid, so I'm looking for better suggestions. SIF_VIRT_KERNEL_P2M? SIF_FLAT_P2M? Juergen