From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] xen/x86: Calculate PV CR4 masks at boot
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:08:52 +0100
Message-ID: <558C19840200007800089A5D@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1435163500-10589-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1435163500-10589-7-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1435163500-10589-7-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 24.06.15 at 18:31, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> @@ -682,24 +682,47 @@ void arch_domain_unpause(struct domain *d)
>          viridian_time_ref_count_thaw(d);
>  }
>  
> -unsigned long pv_guest_cr4_fixup(const struct vcpu *v, unsigned long guest_cr4)
> +/*
> + * These are the masks of CR4 bits (subject to hardware availability) which a
> + * PV guest may not legitimiately attempt to modify.
> + */
> +static unsigned long __read_mostly pv_cr4_mask, compat_pv_cr4_mask;

The patch generally being fine, I still wonder why you chose to use
"pv" in the names instead of the previous "hv": To me, the latter
makes more sense: "the bits the hypervisor controls" instead of "the
bits pv guests do not control".

Jan