From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: [help]: handling IO instructions for hybrid Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:17:20 -0800 Message-ID: <20120208181720.377bb098@mantra.us.oracle.com> References: <20120206182654.5b5d3f2d@mantra.us.oracle.com> 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.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell , "stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:41:23 +0000 Keir Fraser wrote: > On 07/02/2012 02:26, "Mukesh Rathor" wrote: > > > > I am figuring io access for hybrid guests, dom0 and domU. I see > > that there are two ways: PV -> emulate_privileged_op(), or hvm > > handles via handle_mmio()/handle_pio(). I am not familiar with > > either one, and would help me lot if anybody expert in that can > > suggest which way hybrid should go, both dom0 and domU. Any > > suggestions would help. If there are any docs on this, that would > > be great too. > > Probably the PV route, for dom0 and domU. Really most things you want > to do, the PV route is going to be the right way (unless you are > PVHVM'ing certain things, e.g., like using EPT assistance for > pagetable handling). > > -- Keir Thanks Keir. Just to confirm, the hybrid should continue to request iopl of 1, right? Mukesh