Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/16] x86: put XEN_DOMCTL_{set, get}_address_size under CONFIG_PV

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:00:17AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.10.18 at 21:50, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:28:07AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 19.10.18 at 16:28, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> >> > @@ -608,6 +608,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl(
> >> >              copyback = true;
> >> >          break;
> >> >  
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PV
> >> >      case XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size:
> >> >          if ( ((domctl->u.address_size.size == 64) && 
> >> > !d->arch.is_32bit_pv) ||
> >> >               ((domctl->u.address_size.size == 32) && 
> >> > d->arch.is_32bit_pv) )
> >> > @@ -623,6 +624,7 @@ long arch_do_domctl(
> >> >                                                                
> >> > BITS_PER_LONG;
> >> >          copyback = true;
> >> >          break;
> >> > +#endif
> >> 
> >> ... add such a check so that similar behavior will result with PV
> >> enabled and disabled (error codes may differ, but success vs
> >> error ought to match).
> > 
> > I don't follow. Do you mean adding is_pv_domain check somewhere?
> 
> Yes. Otherwise behavior differs between a PV and a !PV hypervisor.

I'm still at a loss to figure out what "similar behavior" you want. When
you say behaviour differs, do you mean the lack of copyback in my patch?
Why would that be relevant to a ENOSYS hypercall?

Wei.

> 
> Jan
> 
> 

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