Hi Jan,
On 08/31/2017 12:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.08.17 at 11:49, <prosku...@sec.in.tum.de> wrote: >> On 08/31/2017 10:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 30.08.17 at 20:32, <prosku...@sec.in.tum.de> wrote: >>>> We move the macros (MAX|INVALID)_ALTP2M out of x86-related code to >>>> common code, as the following patches will make use of them on ARM. >>> But both seem not impossible to be require arch-specific values. >> Right. The general idea at this point is to move as much of altp2m >> functionality/configuration as possible into a common place. Yet, if you >> believe that, e.g., the number of altp2m views could/should diverge >> between both architectures, I will gladly move the defines back into >> arch-related parts. However, we need to consider that while x86/Intel >> supports up to 512 entries for EPT pointers as part of the VMCS, we are >> quite flexible on ARM: we manage the views entirely in software and >> hence on ARM we can easily keep up with Intel's specification. This >> allows us to hold parts of the altp2m configuration in a unified place. >> Or do you believe this is not the right way to go? > Well, you've basically answered this yourself: Why would you > want to constrain ARM just because of VMX restrictions? Requiring > all architectures to surface the same constants (regardless of > actual values) is all you need to be able to commonize code. Alright, I will remove the upper constants from common code in v5. Thanks, ~Sergej _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
