Re: [PATCH][v6] PV extension of HVM(hybrid) support in Xen

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:12 +0000, Sheng Yang wrote:
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -2240,6 +2240,13 @@
>      {
>      case VCPUOP_register_runstate_memory_area:
>      case VCPUOP_get_runstate_info:
> +    /* For evtchn on HVM */
> +    case VCPUOP_initialise:
> +    case VCPUOP_up:
> +    case VCPUOP_set_periodic_timer:
> +    case VCPUOP_stop_periodic_timer:
> +    case VCPUOP_set_singleshot_timer:
> +    case VCPUOP_stop_singleshot_timer:

Can we drop that comment? It doesn't really say anything and I'm not
100% sure it is accurate...

> +    case HVMOP_enable_pv: {
> [...]
> +       /* This would be called by BSP, other vcpus are adjusted
> during the
> +        * start-up */
> +       if (a.flags & HVM_PV_CLOCK) {
> +               d->hvm_pv_enabled |= XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED;
> +               update_domain_wallclock_time(d);
> +               hvm_funcs.set_tsc_offset(current, 0);
> +       }

I think you've been asked to get rid of this construct in every posting
so far. That code belongs in the hypercall which the guest uses to
actually attach to the pv clock. I think Stefano's patchset shows that
this hypercall isn't necessary.

Ian.