Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 05/34] xen: is_hvm_domain should evaluate to 0 when !CONFIG_HVM

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Wei,

On 08/21/2018 05:31 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:51:28AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 17.08.18 at 17:12, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Since it is defined in common header file, introduce CONFIG_HVM to
> > > Arm to avoid breakage.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   xen/arch/arm/Kconfig    | 3 +++
> > >   xen/include/xen/sched.h | 6 ++++++
> > >   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > ,
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > index 586bc62..c0e969e 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ config HAS_ITS
> > >           prompt "GICv3 ITS MSI controller support" if EXPERT = "y"
> > >           depends on GICV3 && !NEW_VGIC
> > >   
> > > +config HVM
> > > +        def_bool y
> > I'm not convinced this is a good idea, but I'll let the ARM maintainers
> > judge.
> Andrew discovered that hvm flag is not set by toolstack so ARM guests
> are PV guests to Xen. I think the addition here can be omitted.
>
> However I would still like to hear from ARM maintainers what guest type
> should be set for ARM, because sooner or later I will need to change PV
> code as well.
>
> Grepping for is_{hvm,pv}_* in arch/arm yields no result, but then there
> is common code that we need to take care of.
Using PV was more a convenience at the time because was not there. The 
plan is to switch to PVH (see RFC [1]).
I will try to find some times this week to rework the patch based on the 
comments.
Cheers,

[1] https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-06/msg01537.html

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel