From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com>
Subject: Re: HVM hypercalls
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:54:28 +0000
Message-ID: <C1A8ADF4.62BF%keir@xensource.com>
References: <458297C8.E57C.0030.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <458297C8.E57C.0030.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@novell.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 15/12/06 18:46, "Ky Srinivasan" <ksrinivasan@novell.com> wrote:

> Currently, only a very small subset of the hypercalls are exposed to HVM
> guests. Was this set arrived at based on what was required to host
> para-virtualized  drivers? Or are there other considerations that governed
> this decision. Specifically, would there be any objections to opening up more
> hypercalls to HVM guests.

They need auditing one-by-one, and also we have to worry about 32-on-64
compatibility issues (which will be helped by the PV PAE-on-64 work by Jan
Beulich). We do plan to broaden the supported set of hypercalls (memory_op
for example).

 -- Keir