Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/hvm: unify HVM and PVH hypercall tables.

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 12:34:27 +0200
Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:

> At 09:08 +0100 on 09 May (1399622918), Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 08.05.14 at 17:31, <tim@xen.org> wrote:
> > >  - __HYPERVISOR_platform_op (XSM_PRIV callers only).
> > 
> > I think this needs a little more thought that just relying on the
> > XSM_PRIV check: There are several operations here dealing with
> > machine memory addresses, which aren't directly meaningful to PVH
> > (and HVM, but for now we're not planning on having HVM Dom0). Do
> > you think it is useful to expose them the way they are nevertheless?
> 
> I'll punt that to Mukesh: are there operations in here that a PVH
> dom0 couldn't/shouldn't use or that need adjustment?

I only looked at what was needed in the immediate:

XENPF_settime        17
XENPF_firmware_info  50
XENPF_get_cpuinfo    55

The is_pvh_check restriction for rest got dropped very quickly in the 
face of opposition. I think we should add them here until one by one 
each one is studied and confirmed to be OK.

thanks
mukesh