From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73664C44529 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1367669.1617403 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1wm6yd-0000mI-BW; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:27 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1367669.1617403; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1wm6yd-0000mB-8Y; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:27 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1367669; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:25 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1wm6yb-0000m5-DR for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:25 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wm6yb-000aca-13; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:25 +0000 Received: from 224.pool85-54-217.dynamic.orange.es ([85.54.217.224] helo=localhost) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wm6ya-00FVWe-2O; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:41:24 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:41:10 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Teddy Astie Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/kexec: Wire up kexec hypercalls for PVH hardware domains Message-ID: References: <20260720185825.2204624-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260720185825.2204624-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 07:58:25PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Nothing in do_kexec_op() is PV specific. Plumb in PVH guests too. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper > --- > CC: Jan Beulich > CC: Roger Pau Monné > CC: Teddy Astie > > kexec-tools in userspace still has a PV check needing dropping before kexec is > generally usable for PVH dom0's, but the Xen side should be all fine. Yeah, I took a look into that but didn't attempt to remove the check. However, a PVH dom0 would/could have two ways do to kexec: it could do a guest-only kexec (like other HVM guests), or a full host kexec (like PV dom0). Do we need a switch in kexec tools to signal whether we want to perform a host vs guest kexec? Or should we just assume that a PVH dom0 will exclusively do host kexec? Thanks, Roger.