Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 02/12] early PV on HVM

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@Oracle.com>]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:55:33PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > > +	HYPERVISOR_shared_info = (struct shared_info *)shared_info_page;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Don't do the full vcpu_info placement stuff until we have a
> > > > > +	   possible map and a non-dummy shared_info. */
> > > > 
> > > > Might want to mention where the full vpcu placement is done.
> > > 
> > > The comment is not accurate, we actually don't do any vcpu_info
> > > placement on hvm because it is not very useful there.
> > > Better just to remove the comment (I have done so in my tree).
> > > 
> > > > > +	per_cpu(xen_vcpu, 0) = &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[0];
> > > > 
> > So.. what is the purpose of the per_cpu(xen_vcpu, 0) then?
> > 
> 
> the vcpu info placement memory area is stored in per_cpu(xen_vcpu_info, cpu);
> per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) is just a pointer to that area if it is
> available, otherwise it points to the vcpu_info struct in the shared
> info page.

I was just wondering why are we doing this when you say:
" don't do any vcpu_info placement on hvm because it is not very useful there."

So if it is not useful, why do it?