From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sheng Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:35:23 +0800 Message-ID: <201003180935.23645.sheng@linux.intel.com> References: <201003171718.37598.sheng@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wednesday 17 March 2010 23:17:08 Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Sheng Yang wrote: > > Seem not get enough update... > > > > OK, a new flag, adjustment in Xen. Right? > > Yes, a new flag to signal the presence of a reliable clocksource on HVM; > adjustments in Xen to make it work (keep in mind that my patch fix the > problem only when tsc_mode==2 and we need to support tsc_mode==1 too). > > On the other hand we agreed that we don't need XEN_HVM_PV_EVTCHN_ENABLED > and CONFIG_XEN_HVM_PV anymore. No XEN_HVM_PV_EVTCHN_ENABLED? So you have to enable HVM with evtchn support? I am not quite understand... -- regards Yang, Sheng > We probably don't need XEN_HVM_PV too for the moment, we might introduce > it in the future when we actually add code that doesn't work on 32 bit. > > Finally I would still like the call to xen_guest_init to be moved > afterwards: if we move it after kvm_guest_init we can be pretty sure > that upstream is going to accept it. Besides ACPI is currently working > with your patch series applied, when and if we break ACPI we'll worry > about it. > > Jeremy, Ian, does this seem reasonable to you? The last point in > particular? If you are sure that upstream will accept a hook in setup.c > anyway I am ready to drop this.