[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ded8c58-b9c3-89dc-6883-1794d1c4126a@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:59:34 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] xen/x86: hook up xen_banner() also for PVH
On 07.09.21 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> This was effectively lost while dropping PVHv1 code. Move the function
> and arrange for it to be called the same way as done in PV mode. Clearly
> this then needs re-introducing the XENFEAT_mmu_pt_update_preserve_ad
> check that was recently removed, as that's a PV-only feature.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
>
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> @@ -261,6 +261,18 @@ int xen_vcpu_setup(int cpu)
> return ((per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) == NULL) ? -ENODEV : 0);
> }
>
> +void __init xen_banner(void)
> +{
> + unsigned version = HYPERVISOR_xen_version(XENVER_version, NULL);
> + struct xen_extraversion extra;
Please add a blank line here.
> + HYPERVISOR_xen_version(XENVER_extraversion, &extra);
> +
> + pr_info("Booting paravirtualized kernel on %s\n", pv_info.name);
Is this correct? I don't think the kernel needs to be paravirtualized
with PVH (at least not to the same extend as for PV).
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3092 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists