Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: Merge HVM and PVH hypercall tables

2015-12-17 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 16.12.15 at 17:34, wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c > @@ -5188,12 +5188,21 @@ static hvm_hypercall_t *const > hvm_hypercall64_table[NR_hypercalls] = { > HYPERCALL(sysctl), > HYPERCALL(domctl), > HYPERCALL(tmem_op), > +HYPERCALL(platfor

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: Merge HVM and PVH hypercall tables

2015-12-16 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:34:07AM -0500, 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. > * platf