>>> On 07.07.16 at 17:04, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 07/07/2016 04:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 06.07.16 at 18:32, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> On 07/06/2016 12:04 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:04:59PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>>> * Don't set HW_REDUCED_ACPI flags: this flag is only available starting >>>>> with > ACPI v5 >>>> Hm, I still think HW_REDUCED_ACPI should be set for the time being, >>>> considering that we don't provide PM timer or RTC for example. Not setting >>>> this would be a violation of the ACPI specification, and would mean >>>> introducing Xen specific hacks yet again to guest OSes, in order to >>>> disable >>>> those devices. >>>> >>>> Is the fact that HW_REDUCED_ACPI was introduced in ACPI v5 a problem? >>> Yes, because we build v2 tables and they are somewhat different. >> So couldn't we switch to building v5 tables (or even v6) for PVH >> (and perhaps re-using the "acpi=" config setting to allow specifying a >> version - with any value above 1 indicating the requested version)? I >> certainly agree that setting a v5 flag in a v2 table is bad (best we can >> hope for is that any consumer would ignore such a flag). > > Hmm... I thought earlier that v2 and v5(+) tables are different but now > that I went back this doesn't seem to be the case. It's v1 vs v2 that > changed formats.
Yeah, they didn't repeat that mistake again. Jan > If that's the case (I'll check more carefully) then yes, we can provide > PVH guests with higher versions. > > -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel