>>> On 11.08.15 at 19:21, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 08/11/2015 05:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 24.07.15 at 19:54, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> On 07/23/2015 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Plus - is this in line with what the tools are doing? Aren't they >>>> assuming !PV <=> native format context? I.e. don't you need >>>> to treat differently v->domain == current->domain and its >>>> opposite? Roger btw. raised a similar question on IRC earlier >>>> today... >>> Not sure I understand this. You mean for copying 64-bit guest's info >>> into 32-bit dom0? >> Basically yes - tool stack and guest invocations may need to >> behave differently. > > This being PVH-"classic" it follows exactly the PV path (both in tools > and the hypervisor). Wouldn't PV be broken then as well?
Note that I raised a question originally (still seen above) instead of asking for a specific change. In the end all I'm asking for is that you make changes in the hypervisor in a way compaible with tools expectations, or adjust the tools accordingly. And of course you should keep in mind what "no-dm" will want (i.e. perhaps sync with Roger), such that we don't end up with guest exposed interface behavior not suitable for the long term targets we have. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
