Re: huh startup_ipi_hook?

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> But the native and vmi versions would be identical.  You would be
> moving the apic_read / apic_write operations from paravirt_ops to
> apic_ops, which doesn't really solve anything, it just moves it around.

Yes, that's fine.  The idea is that paravirt_ops is intended to be a
relatively coherent interface for implementing a paravirtualized guest,
and ideally, shrinking it over time.

Given that the way VMI uses the apic as part of its hypervisor interface
is a VMI implementation detail which doesn't live at the same level of
abstraction as the rest of paravirt_ops.  What's more, the apic
interfaces have no relevance to either lguest or Xen, and there's simply
no meaningful implementation for the operations other than "hope these
don't get called".

I think the more things we can devolve out of paravirt_ops the better,
especially if they make well-defined self-contained interfaces of their
own.  I would be open, for example, to moving all the pagetable and
privileged instruction operations out into their own _ops interfaces
(but not right now).

    J