Re: [PATCH 16/20] PVH xen: Miscellaneous changes

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 15.05.13 at 02:52, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domctl.c
> @@ -64,9 +64,10 @@ long domctl_memory_mapping(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
>  
>      if ( add_map )
>      {
> -        printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> -               "memory_map:add: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> -               d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
> +        if ( !is_pvh_domain(d) )     /* PVH maps lots and lots */
> +            printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> +                   "memory_map:add: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> +                   d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
>  
>          ret = iomem_permit_access(d, mfn, mfn + nr_mfns - 1);
>          if ( !ret && paging_mode_translate(d) )
> @@ -91,9 +92,10 @@ long domctl_memory_mapping(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
>      }
>      else
>      {
> -        printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> -               "memory_map:remove: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> -               d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
> +        if ( !is_pvh_domain(d) )     /* PVH unmaps lots and lots */
> +            printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
> +                   "memory_map:remove: dom%d gfn=%lx mfn=%lx nr=%lx\n",
> +                   d->domain_id, gfn, mfn, nr_mfns);
>  
>          if ( paging_mode_translate(d) )
>              for ( i = 0; i < nr_mfns; i++ )

Are these changes still necessary? IOW why would a PVH guest be
mapping so much more MMIO memory than a PV one?

> @@ -1304,6 +1306,11 @@ void arch_get_info_guest(struct vcpu *v, vcpu_guest_context_u c)
>              c.nat->gs_base_kernel = hvm_get_shadow_gs_base(v);
>          }
>      }
> +    else if ( is_pvh_vcpu(v) )
> +    {
> +        /* pvh fixme: punt it to phase II */
> +        printk(XENLOG_WARNING "PVH: fixme: arch_get_info_guest()\n");
> +    }

Please at least clear out all state that doesn't get properly obtained
(short of being able to return an error).

Jan