From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/compat: Test both PV and PVH guests for compat mode Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:23:20 -0600 Message-ID: <55CB02780200007800099EE9@prv-mh.provo.novell.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> <55CA2F10.6090503@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55CA2F10.6090503@oracle.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Boris Ostrovsky 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, roger.pau@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 11.08.15 at 19:21, wrote: > 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? Note that I raised a question originally (still seen above) instead of asking for a specific change. In the end all I'm asking for is that you make changes in the hypervisor in a way compaible with tools expectations, or adjust the tools accordingly. And of course you should keep in mind what "no-dm" will want (i.e. perhaps sync with Roger), such that we don't end up with guest exposed interface behavior not suitable for the long term targets we have. Jan