| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Hypercall interface changes for PAE
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:26:51PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2005, at 19:21, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> >The downside of this approach is that the C declarations of
> >mmu_update_t, update_va_mapping, etc are different on 32-bit PAE
> >builds. But only low-level guest code will touch those interfaces
> >anyway, and there is unlikely to be code sharing between PAE and
> >non-PAE at that level.
> >
> >What do you think?
>
> Actually, we could export intpte_t and physaddr_t at the guest
> interface and declare mmu_update_t and friends in terms of those
> typedefs. This would also avoid needing different wrapper
> implementations of those hypercalls within Xen itself. Neat. :-)
That certainly would be the way to go if we want to have
different interfaces for PAE and non-PAE. I'm not sure it
is a good idea to have different hypercall interfaces for
PAE and non-PAE cases in the first place.
What does this mean for the tools? Would these also be
either PAE or non-PAE then?
What about the option to maybe run non-PAE guests in PAE-xen
in some translated shadow mode? That wouldn't work then.
I don't think this would be a big problem though ...
Gerd
--
-mm seems unusually stable at present.
-- akpm about 2.6.12-rc3-mm3
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home