Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-12-01 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> Wei Liu 12/01/17 1:30 PM >>> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 01.12.17 at 13:15, wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:11:45AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> >>> On 01.12.17 at 12:48,

Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-12-01 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 01.12.17 at 13:15, wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:11:45AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 01.12.17 at 12:48, wrote: >> > Suppose at one point we split hardware domain and control domain, which >> > one will you call Dom0? Which one wi

Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-12-01 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 01.12.17 at 12:48, wrote: > Suppose at one point we split hardware domain and control domain, which > one will you call Dom0? Which one will get the flag? There can only be one hardware domain, which will continue to be the one getting XENFEAT_dom0. There could be any number of control dom

Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-12-01 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 01.12.17 at 11:21, wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:35:45AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 30.11.17 at 09:23, wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 29, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > >> >> Ah, I see. But then still I don't see why at

Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-11-30 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 30.11.17 at 09:23, wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Ah, I see. But then still I don't see why at least on half way >> recent Xen /sys/hypervisor/properties/features wouldn't have >> the information you're after (and eve

Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-11-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 29.11.17 at 17:07, wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> But in the description you talk about detect_vm() - by its name that >> doesn't look to care about Dom0, but whether running on top of >> _some_ hypervisor. > > dom0 has to

[systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-11-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 29.11.17 at 16:38, wrote: > The detection of ConditionVirtualisation= relies on the presence of > /proc/xen/capabilities. If the file exists and contains the string > "control_d", the running system is a dom0 and VIRTUALIZATION_NONE should > be set. In case /proc/xen exists, or some sysfs f

Re: [systemd-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

2017-11-29 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 29.11.17 at 16:54, wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> With all of the above, was it considered to check /sys/hypervisor >> alongside with or perhaps even in preference to /proc/xen? > > Yes. > /proc/xen/capabilities is the one and only