Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 04/12] xen/hvmlite: Bootstrap HVMlite guest | From | Boris Ostrovsky <> | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:58:56 -0500 |
| |
On 01/27/2016 02:00 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: >> Worth mentioning here also is hpa's clarification on when subarch type >> PC (0) should be used: [it should be used if the hardware is] >> "enumerable using standard PC mechanisms (PCI, ACPI) and doesn't need >> a special boot flow" -- does that fit HVMLite's description so far? If >> so then The Xen subarch may need to be redefined as well to be clear >> what it means. I don't think we need to be precise but at the very >> least cover grounds to enable the definitions to meet its actual use >> to not confuse users. > Another thing to consider for HVMlite is that if the 0 subarch (PC) is > used in light of my linker table work and x86's use of it with the > subarch and supported subarch bitmask, is that it would also mean > HVMLite would run all routines currently pegged as needing PC type > (the current KVM and bare metal path) and it would mean not running > anything only pegged with Xen subarch type (but note that today Xen > doesn't even set the subarch type). If there is nothing in common > between PV and HVMlite (no x86 init calls to share), and if HVMLite > *can* call *alllllllll* PC init calls, then by all means this is fine,
Yes, that's the idea. HVMlite jumps to startup_32|64 from the stub and runs from there with subarch 0.
-boris
> and if we just need to distinguish stuff between PC types that's fine, > it may still be possible to further extend hypervisor_type to the x86 > init calls I'm adding as another supported_hyper_types to ensure even > though a subarch is being used, that we also check the supported > hypervisor type as well. > > Luis
| |