Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] pvh: clearly specify used parameters in vcpu_guest_context

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/11/13 10:29, Roger Pau Monnà wrote:
> On 20/11/13 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 20.11.13 at 10:37, Roger Pau MonnÃ<roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 20/11/13 10:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 20.11.13 at 10:18, Roger Pau MonnÃ<roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On 19/11/13 17:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 19.11.13 at 17:42, Roger Pau MonnÃ<roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > Trying to make all those fields functional on PVH (or HVM) is quite
> > > > > > > useless IMHO, it's going to add more code that I doubt anyone is going
> > > > > > > to use when you can instead use the bare metal functions to set all
> > > > > > > those things (and from an OS point of view it's also more comfortable
> > > > > > > because you need less Xen specific stuff).
> > > > > > That last part I certainly agree to, but that would apply to CR0
> > > > > > and CR4 just as much.
> > > > > I've removed the usage of anything that's not strictly necessary in
> > > > > order to do AP bringup, so I've removed the setting of debugregs:
> > > > You can't - this code is also used for HVM guests.
> > > Yes, my fault, I erroneously thought this was introduced by 35b1e076,
> > > but it has been there longer than that. Would you agree to a patch
> > > similar to the one posted, but without touching the setting of debugregs?
> > Yes, if Mukesh and George confirm that this is not going to break
> > things.
Well it does change the interface, by not setting gs_base_kernel; but 
that was part of the point. :-)
The rest of it looks OK to me -- Roger, have you tested Linux?

 -George


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