From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/compat: Test both PV and PVH guests for compat mode Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:21:20 -0400 Message-ID: <55CA2F10.6090503@oracle.com> References: <1436566853-8444-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> <1436566853-8444-3-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> <55B111500200007800094A51@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <55B27BF2.1080902@oracle.com> <55C9DA3802000078000996E8@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55C9DA3802000078000996E8@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , roger.pau@citrix.com Cc: elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/11/2015 05:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 24.07.15 at 19:54, wrote: >> On 07/23/2015 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Plus - is this in line with what the tools are doing? Aren't they >>> assuming !PV <=> native format context? I.e. don't you need >>> to treat differently v->domain == current->domain and its >>> opposite? Roger btw. raised a similar question on IRC earlier >>> today... >> Not sure I understand this. You mean for copying 64-bit guest's info >> into 32-bit dom0? > Basically yes - tool stack and guest invocations may need to > behave differently. This being PVH-"classic" it follows exactly the PV path (both in tools and the hypervisor). Wouldn't PV be broken then as well? -boris