[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvh: add a call to pit_init to init spinlock
>>> On 08.03.14 at 03:28, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c > @@ -1299,6 +1299,9 @@ int hvm_vcpu_initialise(struct vcpu *v) > v->arch.hvm_vcpu.hcall_64bit = 1; /* PVH 32bitfixme. */ > /* This is for hvm_long_mode_enabled(v). */ > v->arch.hvm_vcpu.guest_efer = EFER_SCE | EFER_LMA | EFER_LME; > + > + if ( v->vcpu_id == 0 ) > + pit_init(v, cpu_khz); I know I'm asking a lot, but did you consider using the opportunity to do what the HVM call site says - move this to hvm_domain_initialise()? Or, considering that PV wants this too, even move it to arch_domain_create()? > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/i8254.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/i8254.c > @@ -454,6 +454,9 @@ void pit_init(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long cpu_khz) > > spin_lock_init(&pit->lock); > > + if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) ) > + return; > + > if ( is_hvm_domain(d) ) > { > register_portio_handler(d, PIT_BASE, 4, handle_pit_io); So I'm confused: Both HVM and PV want the function executed to its end. Why would PVH bail early? The more that I don't think pit_reset() would do any harm to PVH. And considering the I/O model, I think the ultimate goal would need to be to switch above is_hvm_domain() to has_hvm_container_domain(). If that doesn't work right now, it should probably get another "pvh fixme" attached. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |