From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/16]: PVH xen: introduce vmx_pvh.c
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:29:47 -0800
Message-ID: <20130124182947.113ef6a6@mantra.us.oracle.com>
References: <20130111180110.55ce77aa@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<50F4013202000078000B5421@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130114165408.0778f73b@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<50F5257B02000078000B5AE9@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<20130123175950.772a3526@mantra.us.oracle.com>
	<51010B3902000078000B902E@nat28.tlf.novell.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: <51010B3902000078000B902E@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:21:45 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 24.01.13 at 02:59, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:46:35 +0000 "Jan Beulich"
> > <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> The main thing are the hypercall wrappers - they're definitely not
> >> VMX-specific, and hence don't belong in VMX-specific code. Besides
> > 
> > Ah, I see. The HVM hcalls are in hvm.c and not vmx.c. Since PVH
> > needs slightly different hcalls and restricts certain ones ok for
> > HVM, I really prefer to not pollute hvm_do_hypercall() with if PVH
> > everywhere. I could add a new function to hvm.c,
> > pvh_hvm_do_hypercall(), or create a new file hvm_pvh.c and add it
> > there. What would you suggest?
> 
> The only mail with that patch that I have definitely has these in
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx_pvh.c.
I meant for an HVM guest, the hcalls are in hvm.c and not vmx.c. I
kinda tried to follow that.

> So yes, the correct thing - if adjustments to the existing ones
> makes the code too ugly - would be for them to go into
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/pvh.c.

Ok, will do it.