Re: [Xen-devel] portability issues

To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] portability issues
From:	Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:04 +0100
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:56:04 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<467A66B3.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	Acez6qjb50lIxB/dEdyfwwAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] portability issues
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214



On 21/6/07 10:53, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> (1) and (2): I want to kill off use of vcpu_guest_context in dom0 tools,
>> make hvm save/restore a generic state load/save interface, and define
>> extensible structures at that interface (pass a stream of state chunks back
>> and forth at the interface, each chunk having a size in its header, and so
>> increasing the size of a chunk allows it to be naturally appended to and
>> hence extended).
> 
> I wasn't concerned about the tools interface. The real compatibility problem
> is VCPUOP_initialize.

I don't see the problem. The guest will not be able to initialise secondary
VCPU's sysenter/syscall state via this interface. So what?

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] portability issues