From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/17] x86/VPMU: Suport for PVH guests
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:44:40 -0500
Message-ID: <52F118F8.6040202@oracle.com>
References: <1390331342-3967-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<1390331342-3967-17-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
	<52F0E2570200007800118FA5@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
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: <52F0E2570200007800118FA5@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: keir@xen.org, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, dietmar.hahn@ts.fujitsu.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 02/04/2014 06:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.01.14 at 20:09, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> +        if ( is_pvh_domain(current->domain) && !(vpmu_mode & XENPMU_MODE_PRIV) )
>> +            if ( !vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->do_interrupt(regs) )
>> +                return 0;
> Please fold chained if()s like this one.
>
>> @@ -237,7 +242,7 @@ int vpmu_do_interrupt(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>>               else if ( !is_control_domain(current->domain) &&
>>                         !is_idle_vcpu(current) )
>>               {
>> -                /* PV guest */
>> +                /* PV(H) guest */
> I would have expected PVH guests to use the HVM paths here, not
> the PV ones. Can you clarify why you do it the other way around?

I could go either way but because PVH uses event channels for interrupts 
I went with PV path. To use HVM route I'd need to send NMIs to the guest 
and that is currently not quite working.

-boris