Re: [PATCH 08/18] PVH xen: tools changes to create PVH domain

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 30/08/13 02:24, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:29:44 +0100
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 12:13 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Mukesh Rathor
>>> <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure how you are currently signalling to the hypervisor
>>>>> that a new domain is a PVH domain? I had a look through this
>>>>> patch and must be being thick because I don't see it.
>>>> I had a flag set, but it was recommended during RFC to remove it.
>>>> So, now in xen, a PV with HAP is a PVH guest:
>>> Why was it recommended to remove it?
>>>
>>> "PVH == PV + HAP" is a ridiculous interface, and one which will make
>>> it hard to import shadow in the future.  In my series I'm planning
>>> on adding XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_pvh_guest, and using that instead.
>> These are not stable ABI interfaces, so if someone wants to do PVH
>> with Shadow then they can just change it.
> I thought we named PVH for PV with HAP :).. for shadow are we going
> to rename it to PVS?? :)..... Besides for shadow the tools do the right
> thing:
>
> arch_setup_meminit():
>      if ( xc_dom_feature_translated(dom) && !dom->pvh_enabled )
>      {
>          dom->shadow_enabled = 1;
>          rc = x86_shadow(dom->xch, dom->guest_domid);
>          ..
>
> In any case, I am ok either way...

But you said "it was recommended to remove it". Who recommended removing 
it and why?

  -George