[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201101060920.47797.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:20:47 +0800
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] xen: HVM X2APIC support
On Wednesday 05 January 2011 22:56:28 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > @@ -1384,6 +1365,17 @@ static bool __init xen_hvm_platform(void)
> > >
> > > return true;
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > +bool xen_hvm_need_lapic(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (xen_pv_domain())
> > > + return false;
> > > + if (xen_hvm_domain() && xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs) &&
> > > + xen_have_vector_callback)
> > > + return false;
> > > + return (xen_cpuid_base() != 0);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_hvm_need_lapic);
> > > +
>
> Since xen_hvm_domain() is always true if xen_cpuid_base() != 0, isn't
> this more obviously written as:
> if (!xen_hvm_domain())
> return false;
XEN_HVM_DOMAIN works only when kernel built with CONFIG_XEN. This patch can also
support kernel built without CONFIG_XEN but with CONFIG_X86_X2APIC.
> if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_pirqs) && xen_have_vector_callback)
> return false;
> return true;
> ?
>
> Also, checking for the XenVMMXenVMM signature alone seems like a very
> broad test for checking the availability of a specific feature, is there
> nothing more specific which we could/should be testing?
The CPU flag x2apic is checked when we want to enable x2apic, and only Xen which
supported x2apic emulation would show this flag.
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
>
> Ian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists