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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.11.16 at 13:38, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On 11/22/2016 06:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> 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()?
> 
> I think the latter is better. But then to keep flag names in sync with 
> has_*() macros, how about XEN_X86_EMU_DM_ACPI_FF?

Not sure - the flag name, as said, seemed fine to me before, and I
don't overly care about the two names fully matching up. Maybe
others here have an opinion?

Jan


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