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 01/14] Nested Virtualization: tools

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/14] Nested Virtualization: tools
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:54:34 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:00:55 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C88FFA51.1E0D3%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1A42CE6F5F474C41B63392A5F80372B2291436C6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C88FFA51.1E0D3%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acs9129JB24JYVk+QnyfzYyA5UN+ggAAKvOgAAGqOOcAAHfFMA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/14] Nested Virtualization: tools
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 17/08/2010 08:19, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>      xc_get_hvm_param(xch, domid, HVM_PARAM_PAE_ENABLED, &pae);    
>>> is_pae = !!pae; 
>>> +    xc_get_hvm_param(xch, domid, HVM_PARAM_NESTEDHVM, &nestedhvm);
>> If you insist to support cross vendor nested virtualization, I would
>> like to suggest we have multiple options for configuration: VMX,
>> SVM, or HW. 
>> VMX and SVM option is for what situation that the user want to
>> enforce the guest VMX/SVM features regardless of underlying
>> hardware, while HW means to implements same with underlying
>> virtualization feature in guest. In this way, it provides room for
>> either cross vendor nested virtualization or natively virtualization.
> We don't want cross-vendor nested virt, ever. So a simple boolean is
> fine imo.
OK, got it. That is also what I believe to be.

Under this situation, I would suggest Chris to re-shuffle his patch series 
which are primarily based on the assumption of supporting cross vendor nested 
The major part of so called common code in this patch series is SVM specific 
and should go to hvm/svm sub-directory.

Thanks, Eddie

Xen-devel mailing list