Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/8]: PVH: Basic and preparatory changes

[Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:14:39AM -0700, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:00:07 +0100
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 20:32 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:26:20 +0100
> > > Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:02 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > Callback vector is XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector, I think.
> > 
> > A PV kernel is required to announce the features which it supports via
> > the elf notes (defined in xen-head.S).
> > 
> > It would be a bug for the toolstack to enable PVH mode for a kernel
> > which did not claim to support the required featureset.
> > 
> > The aim should be that the user should not normally need to specify
> > pvh one way or the other, imagine a use case where pygrub is used to
> > boot both old and new kernels using it.
> > 
> > The toolstack (or the dom0 builder) can make the determination whether
> > to enable this mode itself itself based on the notes (although it is
> > always handy to have an override to force things for debug).
> 
> Hmmm... So you are suggesting that if hardware and xen supports it, then
> PV should just boot in PVH mode and user has no way to override it. I
> don't know if that's a good idea in the short term, perhaps in the long
> term. Let me discuss with folks here a bit.
> 

I read that as "if hardware, xen and kernel supports PVH, enable it as a 
default,
but still allow the user to force enable/disable it in the domain cfgfile for 
easier debugging".

-- Pasi


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel