| Message ID | 1469809747-11176-5-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 29/07/16 17:28, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > Split the Dom0 builder into two different functions, one for PV (and classic > PVH), and another one for PVHv2. Introduce a new command line parameter, > dom0hvm in order to request the creation of a PVHv2 Dom0. > > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> > --- > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > --- > xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 9 +++++++++ A patch to docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown please. > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c > index 09d79be..c0ef40f 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c > @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static int __init setup_permissions(struct domain *d) > return rc; > } > > -int __init construct_dom0( > +static int __init construct_dom0_pv( > struct domain *d, > const module_t *image, unsigned long image_headroom, > module_t *initrd, > @@ -1647,6 +1647,31 @@ out: > return rc; > } > > +static int __init construct_dom0_hvm(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, > + unsigned long image_headroom, > + module_t *initrd, > + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), > + char *cmdline) > +{ > + > + printk("** Building a PVH Dom0 **\n"); Some naming curiosities here, especially given the parameter name. > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +int __init construct_dom0(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, > + unsigned long image_headroom, module_t *initrd, > + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), > + char *cmdline) > +{ > + > + return is_hvm_domain(d) ? > + construct_dom0_hvm(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, > + bootstrap_map, cmdline) : > + construct_dom0_pv(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, bootstrap_map, > + cmdline); This could be slightly less awkwardly split as: (is_hvm_domain(d) ? construct_dom0_hvm : construct_dom0_pv) (d, image, image_headroom, initrd, bootstrap_map, cmdline); with some appropriate indentation/alignment. ~Andrew
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:57:08PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 29/07/16 17:28, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > Split the Dom0 builder into two different functions, one for PV (and classic > > PVH), and another one for PVHv2. Introduce a new command line parameter, > > dom0hvm in order to request the creation of a PVHv2 Dom0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> > > --- > > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > > --- > > xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 9 +++++++++ > > A patch to docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown please. OK, I wasn't really sure if we want to introduce a new command line option, or just use dom0pvh. In any case I will add it, we can always alias dom0pvh to dom0pvh (or the other way around) when classic PVH support is removed. > > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c > > index 09d79be..c0ef40f 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c > > @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static int __init setup_permissions(struct domain *d) > > return rc; > > } > > > > -int __init construct_dom0( > > +static int __init construct_dom0_pv( > > struct domain *d, > > const module_t *image, unsigned long image_headroom, > > module_t *initrd, > > @@ -1647,6 +1647,31 @@ out: > > return rc; > > } > > > > +static int __init construct_dom0_hvm(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, > > + unsigned long image_headroom, > > + module_t *initrd, > > + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), > > + char *cmdline) > > +{ > > + > > + printk("** Building a PVH Dom0 **\n"); > > Some naming curiosities here, especially given the parameter name. Hm, AFAIK we agreed on keeping the 'PVH' naming, but since internally Xen has no concept of 'PVH' I think the constructor is better named as HVM (and in fact if PVH wasn't there before I would just consider this a HVM Dom0). If people prefer HVM I can certainly change it, but I think it's going to get messy. > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +int __init construct_dom0(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, > > + unsigned long image_headroom, module_t *initrd, > > + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), > > + char *cmdline) > > +{ > > + > > + return is_hvm_domain(d) ? > > + construct_dom0_hvm(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, > > + bootstrap_map, cmdline) : > > + construct_dom0_pv(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, bootstrap_map, > > + cmdline); > > This could be slightly less awkwardly split as: > > (is_hvm_domain(d) ? construct_dom0_hvm : construct_dom0_pv) > (d, image, image_headroom, initrd, bootstrap_map, cmdline); > > with some appropriate indentation/alignment. Done, thanks! Roger.
On 01/08/16 12:36, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:57:08PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 29/07/16 17:28, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> Split the Dom0 builder into two different functions, one for PV (and classic >>> PVH), and another one for PVHv2. Introduce a new command line parameter, >>> dom0hvm in order to request the creation of a PVHv2 Dom0. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> >>> --- >>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> >>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>> --- >>> xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 9 +++++++++ >> A patch to docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown please. > OK, I wasn't really sure if we want to introduce a new command line option, > or just use dom0pvh. In any case I will add it, we can always alias dom0pvh > to dom0pvh (or the other way around) when classic PVH support is > removed. I am not terribly fussed, so long as the docs match the hypervisor behaviour :) > >>> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c >>> index 09d79be..c0ef40f 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c >>> @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static int __init setup_permissions(struct domain *d) >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> -int __init construct_dom0( >>> +static int __init construct_dom0_pv( >>> struct domain *d, >>> const module_t *image, unsigned long image_headroom, >>> module_t *initrd, >>> @@ -1647,6 +1647,31 @@ out: >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> +static int __init construct_dom0_hvm(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, >>> + unsigned long image_headroom, >>> + module_t *initrd, >>> + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), >>> + char *cmdline) >>> +{ >>> + >>> + printk("** Building a PVH Dom0 **\n"); >> Some naming curiosities here, especially given the parameter name. > Hm, AFAIK we agreed on keeping the 'PVH' naming, but since internally Xen > has no concept of 'PVH' I think the constructor is better named as HVM (and > in fact if PVH wasn't there before I would just consider this a HVM Dom0). > > If people prefer HVM I can certainly change it, but I think it's going to > get messy. Fair enough. ~Andrew
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c index 09d79be..c0ef40f 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static int __init setup_permissions(struct domain *d) return rc; } -int __init construct_dom0( +static int __init construct_dom0_pv( struct domain *d, const module_t *image, unsigned long image_headroom, module_t *initrd, @@ -1647,6 +1647,31 @@ out: return rc; } +static int __init construct_dom0_hvm(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, + unsigned long image_headroom, + module_t *initrd, + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), + char *cmdline) +{ + + printk("** Building a PVH Dom0 **\n"); + + return 0; +} + +int __init construct_dom0(struct domain *d, const module_t *image, + unsigned long image_headroom, module_t *initrd, + void *(*bootstrap_map)(const module_t *), + char *cmdline) +{ + + return is_hvm_domain(d) ? + construct_dom0_hvm(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, + bootstrap_map, cmdline) : + construct_dom0_pv(d, image, image_headroom, initrd, bootstrap_map, + cmdline); +} + /* * Local variables: * mode: C diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c index 217c775..8d9c3a0 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c @@ -75,6 +75,10 @@ unsigned long __read_mostly cr4_pv32_mask; static bool_t __initdata opt_dom0pvh; boolean_param("dom0pvh", opt_dom0pvh); +/* Boot dom0 in HVM mode */ +static bool_t __initdata opt_dom0hvm; +boolean_param("dom0hvm", opt_dom0hvm); + /* **** Linux config option: propagated to domain0. */ /* "acpi=off": Sisables both ACPI table parsing and interpreter. */ /* "acpi=force": Override the disable blacklist. */ @@ -1492,6 +1496,11 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) if ( opt_dom0pvh ) domcr_flags |= DOMCRF_pvh | DOMCRF_hap; + if ( opt_dom0hvm ) { + domcr_flags |= DOMCRF_hvm | (hvm_funcs.hap_supported ? DOMCRF_hap : 0); + config.emulation_flags = XEN_X86_EMU_LAPIC|XEN_X86_EMU_IOAPIC; + } + /* * Create initial domain 0. * x86 doesn't support arch-configuration. So it's fine to pass
Split the Dom0 builder into two different functions, one for PV (and classic PVH), and another one for PVHv2. Introduce a new command line parameter, dom0hvm in order to request the creation of a PVHv2 Dom0. Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> --- Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> --- xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 9 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)