From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Draft C] Boot ABI for HVM guests without a
 device-model
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:08:37 +0200
Message-ID: <55F7C3F5.1020609@citrix.com>
References: <55E98A8F.3080305@citrix.com>
	<55E9C1E1020000780009FC72@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<55E9AB40.8060402@citrix.com>
	<55E9D30C020000780009FD9F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<55E9BD02.40701@citrix.com> <1441383166.25589.10.camel@citrix.com>
	<55ED5A32.7080500@citrix.com>
	<55ED7D7B02000078000A0522@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=6935148de=roger.pau@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZbkM6-0007Ag-BG
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:08:42 +0000
In-Reply-To: <55ED7D7B02000078000A0522@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Elena Ufimtseva <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 07/09/15 a les 12.05, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>> On 07.09.15 at 11:34, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> So AFAICS we have 3 options:
>>
>> 1. Overload VCPUOP_initialise like it's done in the current series (v6).
>> For PV guests the hypercall parameter is of type vcpu_guest_context,
>> while for HVM guests the parameter is of type vcpu_hvm_context.
>>
>> 2. Create a new hypercall (VCPUOP_hvm_initialise) only available to HVM
>> guests, that only allows vcpu_hvm_context as a parameter.
>>
>> 3. Deprecate current VCPUOP_initialise, introduce a new
>> VCPUOP_initialise, that takes the following parameter:
>>
>> union vcpu_context {
>> 	struct vcpu_guest_context pv_ctx;
>> 	struct vcpu_hvm_context hvm_ctx;
>> };
>>
>> TBH, I don't have an opinion between 2 and 3, but I would like to get a
>> consensus before I start implementing any of those.
> 
> Let me first take a look at how your implementation of 1 looks like.

Ping?