On 23.09.21 17:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.09.2021 16:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 07.09.21 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> This was effectively lost while dropping PVHv1 code. Move the function
>>> and arrange for it to be called the same way as done in PV mode. Clearly
>>> this then needs re-introducing the XENFEAT_mmu_pt_update_preserve_ad
>>> check that was recently removed, as that's a PV-only feature.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>
>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>>> @@ -261,6 +261,18 @@ int xen_vcpu_setup(int cpu)
>>>    	return ((per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) == NULL) ? -ENODEV : 0);
>>>    }
>>>    
>>> +void __init xen_banner(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	unsigned version = HYPERVISOR_xen_version(XENVER_version, NULL);
>>> +	struct xen_extraversion extra;
>>
>> Please add a blank line here.
> 
> Oops.
> 
>>> +	HYPERVISOR_xen_version(XENVER_extraversion, &extra);
>>> +
>>> +	pr_info("Booting paravirtualized kernel on %s\n", pv_info.name);
>>
>> Is this correct? I don't think the kernel needs to be paravirtualized
>> with PVH (at least not to the same extend as for PV).
> 
> What else do you suggest the message to say? Simply drop
> "paravirtualized"? To some extent it is applicable imo, further
> qualified by pv_info.name. And that's how it apparently was with
> PVHv1.

The string could be selected depending on CONFIG_XEN_PV.


Juergen