From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= Subject: Re: [Draft C] Boot ABI for HVM guests without a device-model Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:47:14 +0200 Message-ID: <55E9BD02.40701@citrix.com> References: <55E98A8F.3080305@citrix.com> <55E9C1E1020000780009FC72@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <55E9AB40.8060402@citrix.com> <55E9D30C020000780009FD9F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXtJv-0007Eu-4m for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:54:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: <55E9D30C020000780009FD9F@prv-mh.provo.novell.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: Elena Ufimtseva , Andrew Cooper , Tim Deegan , xen-devel , Boris Ostrovsky List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org El 04/09/15 a les 17.21, Jan Beulich ha escrit: >>>> AP startup >>>> >>> ========== >>>> >>> >>>> >>> AP startup is performed using hypercalls. The following VCPU operations >>>> >>> are used in order to bring up secondary vCPUs: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> * VCPUOP_initialise is used to set the initial state of the vCPU. The >>>> >>> argument passed to the hypercall must be of the type vcpu_hvm_context. >>> >> >>> >> VCPUOP_initialise takes a struct vcpu_guest_context; I don't think >>> >> we can or should change that. >> > >> > Didn't we agree that vcpu_guest_context was not suitable for HVM/PVH guests? > Yes we did. > >> > Patch 24 of my HVM-without-dm series already introduces this new >> > structure and the necessary helpers. > I didn't look at most of the series yet (despite it already being at v6; > I'm sorry, I just didn't get around so far). But I think you agree that > we can't just change an existing hypercall. Iirc along with agreeing > on vcpu_guest_context not being suitable we also agreed that this > will need to be a new sub-op, and I wondered whether calling it > VCPUOP_initialize would be too subtle. VCPUOP_initialize was never available to HVM guests, so I don't think changing the argument is a problem. However, I understand that for the sake of clarity overloading an hypercall this way is not the best practice. What about naming it VCPUOP_hvm_initialise? Would it make sense to add aliases to have: #define VCPU_hvm_up VCPU_up #define VCPU_hvm_down VCPU_down #define VCPU_hvm_is_up VCPU_is_up Just for symmetry reasons? Roger.