This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsuppo

To: Xiaofeng Ling <xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 08:58:41 +0100
Cc: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:54:51 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <429FC330.10505@xxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <3ACA40606221794F80A5670F0AF15F840836E8CF@pdsmsx403> <c14dd1d083dac56284a12cd40fed9c3e@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <429FC330.10505@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 3 Jun 2005, at 03:40, Xiaofeng Ling wrote:

It's now all use shadow_mode_external, and use a permit bitmap for hypercall from vmx domain.
Do you think it's now acceptable?
It's against 1657.

Still messy imo. When I said to split the path by shadow_mode_externel, I meant you should do it within the uaccess macros/functions; not in their callers.

But I'm not sure that is the best way either. Since VMX uses so few hypercalls, and you can easily define a new hypercall jump table in C, why not jump at alternative wrappers for those hypercalls that do the correct copy to/from guest, and then share the common guts of the hypercall with the paravirtualised version? I guess it depends how embedded in the core of each hypercall the VMX changes are...

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list