From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 05/17] pvh: Introduce PVH guest type
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:21:35 +0000
Message-ID: <527B77BF.7030603@eu.citrix.com>
References: <1383567306-6636-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<1383567306-6636-6-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
	<20131106232810.GB32964@deinos.phlegethon.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131106232810.GB32964@deinos.phlegethon.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 06/11/13 23:28, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 12:14 +0000 on 04 Nov (1383563694), George Dunlap wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>> @@ -239,6 +239,17 @@ struct domain *domain_create(
>>   
>>       if ( domcr_flags & DOMCRF_hvm )
>>           d->guest_type = guest_type_hvm;
>> +    else if ( domcr_flags & DOMCRF_pvh )
>> +    {
>> +        if ( !(domcr_flags & DOMCRF_hap) )
>> +        {
>> +            err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +            printk(XENLOG_INFO "PVH guest must have HAP on\n");
>> +            goto fail;
>> +        }
>> +        d->guest_type = guest_type_pvh;
>> +        printk("Creating PVH guest d%d\n", d->domain_id);
>> +    }
> This check seems like it should be in arch-specific code.  If it
> were in arch_domain_create(), it would also correctly handle the
> case where the tools asked for PVH+HAP but HAP wasn't available.

Looking at the HVM case, this (and Jan's comments on the vmcs patch from 
v13) should probably be handled the same way: i.e., at start of day, see 
if we have the necessary hardware support to run in pvh mode; and set 
"pvh_enabled" (analog to hvm_enabled) accordingly. Then we can check 
this in hvm_domain_initialise() just as we do for hvm guests.

  -George