From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Restricted access to IFSR32_EL2 and FPEXC32_EL2 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:00:18 +0100 Message-ID: <1410973218.23505.51.camel@citrix.com> References: <1401187022-15822-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <5384753B.7040904@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Vijay Kilari Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Prasun Kapoor , Vijaya Kumar K , Julien Grall , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 14:29 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote: > So questions are : > 1) Is this the hypercall where domain type is set?. For domU, yes. > If so, can we return error for this hypercall if domU type is not supported by Xen? I think that would indeed be the right thing to do. In addition we need to modifiy arch_get_xen_caps to only include xen-X.Y-armv7l in the result if the hardware does in fact support domU as 32-bit. The toolstack will consult this when trying to figure out if a domain can be built (I think the end result is that XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size should never fail because it should never be called if it could fail, but add the check anyway) > 2) Can xl tool allow to load domU that platform supports?. May be it require > hardware info here which may not be right way to do. Not sure what you are asking here. If you try and build a 32-bit domain on a 64-bit-only platform then the above changes will cause it to fail, which is the right thing to happen. Does that answer your question? Ian.