Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 07/11] pvh/ioreq: Install handlers for ACPI-related PVH IO accesses

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.11.16 at 22:00, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> PVH guests will have ACPI accesses emulated by the hypervisor
> as opposed to QEMU (as is the case for HVM guests)
> 
> Support for IOREQ server emulation of CPU hotplug is indicated
> by XEN_X86_EMU_IOREQ_CPUHP flag.
> 
> Logic for the handler will be provided by a later patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> CC: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> * acpi_ioaccess() returns X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE
> * Renamed XEN_X86_EMU_IOREQ_CPUHP to XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF (together
>   with corresponding has_*())

Except in the description above.

Also, while I'm fine with the flag rename, has_acpi_ff() looks wrong
(or at least misleading) to me: Both HVM and PVHv2 have fixed
function hardware emulated, they only differ in who the emulator
is. Reduced hardware, if we would emulate such down the road,
otoh might then indeed come without. So how about one of
has_xen_acpi_ff() or has_dm_acpi_ff()?

Jan


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