[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1322735197.31810.191.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:26:37 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"android-virt@...ts.cs.columbia.edu"
<android-virt@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
"embeddedxen-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<embeddedxen-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Embeddedxen-devel] [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Xen port to
Cortex-A15 / ARMv7 with virt extensions
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 18:32 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > KVM and Xen at least both fall into the single-return-value category,
> > so we should be able to agree on a calling conventions. KVM does not
> > have an hcall API on ARM yet, and I see no reason not to use the
> > same implementation that you have in the Xen guest.
> >
> > Stefano, can you split out the generic parts of your asm/xen/hypercall.h
> > file into a common asm/hypercall.h and submit it for review to the
> > arm kernel list?
>
> Sure, I can do that.
> Usually the hypercall calling convention is very hypervisor specific,
> but if it turns out that we have the same requirements I happy to design
> a common interface.
I expect the only real decision to be made is hypercall page vs. raw hvc
instruction.
The page was useful on x86 where there is a variety of instructions
which could be used (at least for PV there was systenter/syscall/int, I
think vmcall instruction differs between AMD and Intel also) and gives
some additional flexibility. It's hard to predict but I don't think I'd
expect that to be necessary on ARM.
Another reason for having a hypercall page instead of a raw instruction
might be wanting to support 32 bit guests (from ~today) on a 64 bit
hypervisor in the future and perhaps needing to do some shimming/arg
translation. It would be better to aim for having the interface just be
32/64 agnostic but mistakes do happen.
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