From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:50:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4BA259D3.1010202@goop.org> References: <201003171718.37598.sheng@linux.intel.com> <201003180935.23645.sheng@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Sheng Yang List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/18/2010 07:22 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > Also XEN_HVM_PV_EVTCHN_ENABLED is not a good name for it because we'll > be able to receive evtchns anyway using xen platform device interrupts. > Maybe XEN_HVM_IPI_CALLBACK_ENABLE? > I'm OK with the original name. The point is not that we're getting events from evtchns, but that the mechanism allows us to receive them without having to touch the APICs and suffer the vmexits. To the rest of the kernel, events delivered via the platform device are really just ordinary interrupts from an ordinary device which happens to have a particularly elaborate "interrupt source" register. J