On 09/12/2022 09:56, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
This is simply when guest tries to register a vcpu_info
and since vcpu_info placement is optional in the minimum ABI
therefore we can just fail with -ENOSYS
Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk>
---
target/i386/xen.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/i386/xen.c b/target/i386/xen.c
index 2847b4f864..9d1daadee1 100644
--- a/target/i386/xen.c
+++ b/target/i386/xen.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#include "standard-headers/xen/version.h"
#include "standard-headers/xen/memory.h"
#include "standard-headers/xen/hvm/hvm_op.h"
+#include "standard-headers/xen/vcpu.h"
static int kvm_gva_rw(CPUState *cs, uint64_t gva, void *_buf, size_t sz,
bool is_write)
@@ -194,6 +195,25 @@ static bool kvm_xen_hcall_hvm_op(struct kvm_xen_exit *exit,
}
}
+static bool kvm_xen_hcall_vcpu_op(struct kvm_xen_exit *exit, X86CPU *cpu,
+ int cmd, int vcpu_id, uint64_t arg)
+{
+ int err;
+
+ switch (cmd) {
+ case VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info:
+ /* no vcpu info placement for now */
+ err = -ENOSYS;
Again, should this patch be deferred until we actually implement
something useful here? I.e. folding it into the subsequent patch? It's
not like the boilerplate is massive.
Paul
