RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]vbd/vnif paravirtulization driver hypervisorsupport]

["Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Is there any comment for this patch?
> Is it acceptable or not?

I think it needs a more work. Using grant tables should help unify
things. I'm convinced that you're missing out on some unifying paradigm
that will cause many of the "if(VMX_DOMAIN(current))" clauses to
evaporate. 

I'll think a bit more about this and get back to you.

BTW: have you performance figures?

Best,
Ian

 
> Xiaofeng Ling <> wrote:
> > This patch adds paravirutulization driver support for vmx domain in 
> > hypervisor.  The VBD and VNIF frontend driver can then be used in 
> > unmodified kernel as a module to get better performance than device 
> > model. The backend driver needs no change and can work together with
> > xeno-linux.   
> > The event channel mechanism works as a pci device in guest 
> linux, so a 
> > event channel device driver will as basic module in guest kernel.
> > 
> > What's the patch done is:
> > 1.copy_to/from_guest support, which is used to copy context from/to 
> > guest space to hypervisor space.
> > 2.copy_to/from_user will call copy_to/from_guest for a vmx domain.
> > 3.A separate hypercall table for paravirutulization driver 
> which mask 
> > some unused entries.
> > 4.add hypercalls for address translation.and share page 
> mapping (event
> >   channel and grant table)
> > 5.clean some hypercalls path for vmx domain.
> 

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