From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8]: PVH: Basic and preparatory changes
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:50:17 -0700
Message-ID: <20120820105017.65b6e35e@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <20120815175724.3405043a@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1208161454430.4850@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<20120816114650.4db2079f@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1208171104230.15568@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<20120817122014.3c3387b5@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<20120817193604.GA4573@phenom.dumpdata.com>
	<20120817152617.64e2fe5e@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1208201152510.15568@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.2.02.1208201152510.15568@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: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:02:55 +0100
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:36:04 -0400
> > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > So, if I just add checks for auto_translated_physmap like suggested,
> > wouldn't I be changing and breaking the code paths for dom0_shadow
> > boot of PV guest? is dom0_shadow depracated?
> 
> I think that it is just a debugging option. The most recent reference
> to dom0_shadow is in 2005, according to Google. Not many people would
> miss it.

Agree.

> 
> If I understand dom0_shadow correctly, it wouldn't have
> xen_have_vector_callback set, so the above #define would still work as
> you expect.
> But if all the above characterists are actually true for dom0_shadow
> guests too, then it might make sense to call them pvh domains anyway.
  
Right.

> 
> We can still have a pvh option in the VM config file or as a Xen
> parameter for dom0: it doesn't have to be exported as a SIF flag
> to the Linux kernel though.
> If xen_have_vector_callback is enabled and
> XENFEAT_auto_translated_physmap is also set, then we are effectively
> running as a PVH domain, otherwise we are not. As a consequence only
> the toolstack needs to know about the pvh option in the config file
> to build the guest correctly.

Ok, getting rid of SIF flag. The guest will check for above conditions. 

Thanks for the feedback.