From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [HYBRID]: status update...
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:51:57 -0700
Message-ID: <20120814105157.044a755e@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <20120626181707.4203d336@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<CAFLBxZagm=53bZ=KaWmd7XQkkAduD+znECJRsaJUqrGJDZgkQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120801153439.3f81c923@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<501A4E0C.1090509@eu.citrix.com>
	<20120813151446.22ae85b5@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1208141144070.21096@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<20120814103827.7dcf55f1@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1208141842460.21096@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1208141842460.21096@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:42:54 +0100
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:44:44 +0100
> > Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > > > Ok, I changed all code references from xen_hybrid_domain to
> > > > xen_pvh_domain in linux. Changing xen code too. So it's PVH now.
> > > 
> > > What would xen_pv_domain() and xen_hvm_domain() return in an
> > > hybrid guest?
> > 
> > xen_pv_domain() == TRUE
> > xen_hvm_domain() == FALSE
> > 
> 
> good, just as I expected :)

BTW, being a good hybrid as it is, it uses fields from both pv_domain
and hvm_domain structs. Combining into a union created difficulties for
me. I experimented creating a new struct, hyb_domain, or adding hvm
related fields to pv_domain struct for hybrid, but both involved way too
much code change. So back to having them separated again. LMK if there
any objections undoing the union.

thanks,
Mukesh