[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [V10 PATCH 18/23] PVH xen: add hypercall support for PVH
On 08/08/13 03:12, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:43:54 +0100
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Mukesh Rathor
<mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch expands HVM hcall support to include PVH.
Changes in v8:
- Carve out PVH support of hvm_op to a small function.
Signed-off-by: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 80
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
xen/arch/x86/x86_64/traps.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 70
insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 383c5cd..6af020e 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -3192,6 +3192,17 @@ static long hvm_vcpu_op(
case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_time_memory_area:
rc = do_vcpu_op(cmd, vcpuid, arg);
break;
+
+ case VCPUOP_is_up:
+ case VCPUOP_up:
+ case VCPUOP_initialise:
+ /* PVH fixme: this white list should be removed eventually
*/
What do you mean by this? That PVH won't need these in the future, or
that you'll have some other way?
Just not have these checks here, but just support them all, whatever
makese sense.
Sorry, I still don't understand -- do you mean you want to eventually
just allow all VCPUOPs for PVH?
+ if ( is_pvh_vcpu(current) )
+ rc = do_vcpu_op(cmd, vcpuid, arg);
+ else
+ rc = -ENOSYS;
+ break;
+
default:
rc = -ENOSYS;
break;
@@ -3312,6 +3323,24 @@ static hvm_hypercall_t *const
hvm_hypercall32_table[NR_hypercalls] = { HYPERCALL(tmem_op)
};
+/* PVH 32bitfixme. */
+static hvm_hypercall_t *const pvh_hypercall64_table[NR_hypercalls]
= {
+ HYPERCALL(platform_op),
+ HYPERCALL(memory_op),
+ HYPERCALL(xen_version),
+ HYPERCALL(console_io),
+ [ __HYPERVISOR_grant_table_op ] = (hvm_hypercall_t
*)hvm_grant_table_op,
+ [ __HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op ] = (hvm_hypercall_t
*)hvm_vcpu_op,
+ HYPERCALL(mmuext_op),
+ HYPERCALL(xsm_op),
+ HYPERCALL(sched_op),
+ HYPERCALL(event_channel_op),
+ [ __HYPERVISOR_physdev_op ] = (hvm_hypercall_t
*)hvm_physdev_op,
+ HYPERCALL(hvm_op),
+ HYPERCALL(sysctl),
+ HYPERCALL(domctl)
+};
It would be nice if this list were in the same order as the other
lists, so that it is easy to figure out what calls are common and what
calls are different.
These are ordered by the hcall number, and assists in the debug.
That makes sense. What about adding a "prep" patch which re-organizes
the other lists by hcall number? I'm not particular about which order,
I just think they should be the same.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
