From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v6] PV extension of HVM(hybrid) support in
	Xen
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:17:34 +0800
Message-ID: <201003061117.34873.sheng@linux.intel.com>
References: <201003051412.18555.sheng@linux.intel.com>
	<1267785574.11737.37101.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <1267785574.11737.37101.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Friday 05 March 2010 18:39:34 Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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...

OK

> 
> > +    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.

If you check the code of my patches, you would find pv clock source can work 
without pv clock event now. And if you check Stefano's patch, you would find 
it solved the issue when they are binding(which I neglected). But it can't 
solve the issue now.

"Actually attach" is a good point, but I am not sure there is such kind of 
things now.

-- 
regards
Yang, Sheng