[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351072140.2237.135.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:49:00 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"mukesh.rathor@...cle.com" <mukesh.rathor@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xen/pvh: Extend vcpu_guest_context, p2m, event,
and XenBus.
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 19:12 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
[...]
> + /* GUEST_GDTR_BASE and */
> + ctxt->u.pvh.gdtaddr = (unsigned long)gdt;
> + /* GUEST_GDTR_LIMIT in the VMCS. */
> + ctxt->u.pvh.gdtsz = (unsigned long)(GDT_SIZE - 1);
> +
> [...]
> - ctxt->gdt_frames[0] = gdt_mfn;
> - ctxt->gdt_ents = GDT_ENTRIES;
> + ctxt->u.pv.gdt_frames[0] = gdt_mfn;
> + ctxt->u.pv.gdt_ents = GDT_ENTRIES;
I guess I've been told and forgotten but why does this need to differ
between PV and PVH? Can the hypervisor not take the gfn in gdt_frames[0]
= gdt_mfn and figure out the gdtaddr from it? Is this because n the PV
case the H/V loads the GDT with the address of its own mapping of the
gdt_frames but in the PVH case we have no such mapping because the
pagetables don't have a Xen region in them?
It's worthy of a comment in any case.
[...]
> + /* PVH TBD/FIXME: future work */
[...]
> + /* PVH: TBD/FIXME: debug and fix eio map to work with pvh */
Do we really need these TODOs inline in the code? Especially in generic
code.
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