Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758116Ab2JXJtG (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:49:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.ctxuk.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:32888 "EHLO SMTP.EU.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758095Ab2JXJtC (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:49:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,639,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="15353004" Message-ID: <1351072140.2237.135.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] xen/pvh: Extend vcpu_guest_context, p2m, event, and XenBus. From: Ian Campbell To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk CC: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stefano Stabellini , "mukesh.rathor@oracle.com" Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:49:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1351015931-16991-6-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> References: <1351015931-16991-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1351015931-16991-6-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1301 Lines: 37 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/