On 09/09/16 10:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 09.09.16 at 11:34, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 09/09/16 08:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 09.09.16 at 07:37, <dongli.zh...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>> Did you go through and check that there is nothing this information >>>>>> can already get derived from? I can't immediately point you at >>>>>> anything, but it feels like there should. >>>>>> >>>>> Indeed. And if there isn't and we need to do add our own flagging, >>>>> isn't there a better way and place where to put it (e.g., what Juergen >>>>> and Andrew are hinting at)? >>>> I prefer that to derive whether guest boot finishes is neither limited to a >>>> specific domain type (pv, hvm, pvhvm or pvh) nor a specific arch (i386, >>>> x86_64, >>>> arm32, arm64 or more in the future). Ideally, I would have one or a combo >>>> of >>>> fields belong to "struct domain" but there isn't. >>> Of course. >>> >>>> Can we use the field in vcpu[0]? >>> I don't think so: What if another vCPU was scheduled to run first? >> Use the XEN_DOMCTL_unpausedomain hypercall. It must be called by >> toolstacks on all architectures to complete domain construction. > I think we had settled on this one already. The question now being > discussed is whether a new field in the domain structure is needed, > or whether the information he's after can be derived from already > existing fields.
If the information were derivable from other means, there would be no need to alter XEN_DOMCTL_unpausedomain in the first place. I can't think of any option other than to add something new. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
