On 11/22/2016 09:08 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 22.11.16 at 13:38, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 11/22/2016 06:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 21.11.16 at 22:00, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> PVH guests will have ACPI accesses emulated by the hypervisor >>>> as opposed to QEMU (as is the case for HVM guests) >>>> >>>> Support for IOREQ server emulation of CPU hotplug is indicated >>>> by XEN_X86_EMU_IOREQ_CPUHP flag. >>>> >>>> Logic for the handler will be provided by a later patch. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> >>>> --- >>>> CC: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v3: >>>> * acpi_ioaccess() returns X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE >>>> * Renamed XEN_X86_EMU_IOREQ_CPUHP to XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF (together >>>> with corresponding has_*()) >>> Except in the description above. >>> >>> Also, while I'm fine with the flag rename, has_acpi_ff() looks wrong >>> (or at least misleading) to me: Both HVM and PVHv2 have fixed >>> function hardware emulated, they only differ in who the emulator >>> is. Reduced hardware, if we would emulate such down the road, >>> otoh might then indeed come without. So how about one of >>> has_xen_acpi_ff() or has_dm_acpi_ff()? >> I think the latter is better. But then to keep flag names in sync with >> has_*() macros, how about XEN_X86_EMU_DM_ACPI_FF? > Not sure - the flag name, as said, seemed fine to me before, and I > don't overly care about the two names fully matching up. Maybe > others here have an opinion?
Any preferences? Roger? -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel