>>> On 22.11.16 at 13:38, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On 11/22/2016 06:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 21.11.16 at 22:00, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> PVH guests will have ACPI accesses emulated by the hypervisor >>> as opposed to QEMU (as is the case for HVM guests) >>> >>> Support for IOREQ server emulation of CPU hotplug is indicated >>> by XEN_X86_EMU_IOREQ_CPUHP flag. >>> >>> Logic for the handler will be provided by a later patch. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> >>> --- >>> CC: Paul Durrant <paul.durr...@citrix.com> >>> --- >>> Changes in v3: >>> * acpi_ioaccess() returns X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE >>> * Renamed XEN_X86_EMU_IOREQ_CPUHP to XEN_X86_EMU_ACPI_FF (together >>> with corresponding has_*()) >> >> Except in the description above. >> >> Also, while I'm fine with the flag rename, has_acpi_ff() looks wrong >> (or at least misleading) to me: Both HVM and PVHv2 have fixed >> function hardware emulated, they only differ in who the emulator >> is. Reduced hardware, if we would emulate such down the road, >> otoh might then indeed come without. So how about one of >> has_xen_acpi_ff() or has_dm_acpi_ff()? > > I think the latter is better. But then to keep flag names in sync with > has_*() macros, how about XEN_X86_EMU_DM_ACPI_FF? Not sure - the flag name, as said, seemed fine to me before, and I don't overly care about the two names fully matching up. Maybe others here have an opinion? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
