Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] x86/HVM: Merge HVM and PVH hypercall tables

2015-12-18 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 18/12/2015 21:09, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > The tables are almost identical and therefore there is little reason to > keep both sets. > > PVH needs 3 extra hypercalls: > * mmuext_op. MMUEXT_PIN_L_TABLE are required by control domain (dom0) > when building guests. We add MMUEXT_UNPIN_TABLE for c

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] x86/HVM: Merge HVM and PVH hypercall tables

2015-12-18 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
The tables are almost identical and therefore there is little reason to keep both sets. PVH needs 3 extra hypercalls: * mmuext_op. MMUEXT_PIN_L_TABLE are required by control domain (dom0) when building guests. We add MMUEXT_UNPIN_TABLE for completeness. * platform_op. These are only available to