From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: Xen PV PTE ABI (or lack thereof) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:53:38 +0000 Message-ID: <56A0F0F2.6030702@citrix.com> References: <569FE999.2080404@citrix.com> <56A0CA0902000078000C9899@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56A0BDF2.8030308@citrix.com> <56A0E42702000078000C9970@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56A0DA69.7090002@citrix.com> <56A0EB42.1050003@citrix.com> <56A0ED1F.90603@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56A0ED1F.90603@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper , David Vrabel , Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , Huaitong Han , Tim Deegan , Xen-devel List List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 21/01/16 14:37, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> I think we should document the PV ABI as-is. i.e., that these two PTE >> bits are not available for PV guest use. > > This is already known to break some guests. It shouldn't stay as it > currently is. It's unfortunate that the current ABI is incompatible with some guests in some situations, but it can't be fixed without adding a mechanism for the guest to query or negotiate PTE bit availability since existing guests have to be able to run on older hypervisors. David