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.
Xen-devel mailing list