[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel][PATCH][RESEND]Add broadcast destination for physical destinationmode in LAPIC virtualization code
- To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:02:01 +0100
- Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:00:53 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Thread-index: AcbWT5jsidfVUI6ZSymoMuYZeVAv0AAAacB3AABPbVs=
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel][PATCH][RESEND]Add broadcast destination for physical destinationmode in LAPIC virtualization code
Actually I looked closer and you always make yourself look like a P4/Xeon APIC. So the correct phys broadcast id is always 0xFF for the virtual LAPIC. You shouldn’t check for 0xF. Right?
-- Keir
On 12/9/06 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/9/06 10:41, "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch adds broadcast destination for physical destination mode. Without this patch, HVM x64 Windows cannot install and boot
Signed-off-by: Xiaohui Xin <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
Do you need to support 0xF as broadcast dest? Are there VT chips that have a P6-style APIC? I’m just a little concerned that we may eventually use 0xF as an APIC ID, when we run VT guests with enough VCPUs. We could avoid that though.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
