From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 2] Support for Paging/Sharing on AMD Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:05:48 -0700 Message-ID: <394032cd12b140589a01a427ffd76876.squirrel@webmail.lagarcavilla.org> References: <20120329110357.GE72859@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <7e6f4eefa902b1d9bbfc918e29c867d7.squirrel@webmail.lagarcavilla.org> <20120329150134.GH72859@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <20120329154243.GI72859@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <20120329160133.GA2616@aepfle.de> Reply-To: andres@lagarcavilla.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120329160133.GA2616@aepfle.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Olaf Hering Cc: keir@xen.org, andres@gridcentric.ca, Tim Deegan , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, wei.wang2@amd.com, jbeulich@suse.com, adin@gridcentric.ca List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > On Thu, Mar 29, Tim Deegan wrote: > >> That is, can we just drop this whole test? > > I'm ok with removing the existing boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor test, > check only hap_enabled() and return -ENODEV otherwise. > > A recent change added need_iommu() check, this should be moved up into > the -ENODEV case becasue -EXDEV is for PoD. That was me. Either it has to be lumped with ENODEV or EXDEV. I considered that EXDEV is the right answer. Both PoD and iommu are Xor cases with another DEV. As opposed to no support at all (ENODEV) Andres > > Olaf >