From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Razvan Cojocaru Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxc: Add xc_domain_hvm_get_mtrr_type() call Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:29:10 +0200 Message-ID: <50D1EB56.40400@gmail.com> References: <1355850255.14620.277.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <50D0A6B1.30702@gmail.com> <1355912063.14620.286.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <50D19A2B.2050006@gmail.com> <1355916539.14620.332.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <50D1A9D1.2020106@gmail.com> <50D1D5BD.8080001@gmail.com> <1355929247.14620.436.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <50D1DCC5.5050309@citrix.com> <1355932443.14620.448.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <50D1E723.4070201@citrix.com> <1355933739.14620.456.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1355933739.14620.456.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Andrew Cooper , "Tim (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> Ah - I see your concern. Yes - it might well be different. Is this >> information passed in an HVM save record? It does not appear to be >> associated with the MTRR HVM save record. > > No , this is the internal state not the save record but Razvan is > implementing the same logic in libxc which must necessarily be based on > the hvm saved state only and not the internal emulation state. Exactly, and all I need extra an extra variable in the save record (or simply a single bit in a safe place in one of the existing ones), telling me if the MTRRs are overlapped or not. The CPUID code is just a part of the logic that finds this out in the hypervisor; and specifically it is a part that's better _left_in_ the hypervisor. That is in fact what I was trying to say a few messages ago, when I called the cpuid_eax() function the tricky part. :) Do we agree that a bool_t overlapped should be added to struct hvm_hw_mtrr for this case? Thanks, Razvan Cojocaru