Re: [PATCH 1/8] xen/x86: Remove PVH support

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 10/18/2016 11:33 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 18/10/16 16:45, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 10/18/2016 09:46 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 14/10/16 20:05, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> We are replacing existing PVH guests with new implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> with the following addressed:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/xen/xen.h b/include/xen/xen.h
>>>> index f0f0252..d0f9684 100644
>>>> --- a/include/xen/xen.h
>>>> +++ b/include/xen/xen.h
>>>> @@ -29,17 +29,6 @@ enum xen_domain_type {
>>>>  #define xen_initial_domain()	(0)
>>>>  #endif	/* CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 */
>>>>  
>>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PVH
>>>> -/* This functionality exists only for x86. The XEN_PVHVM support exists
>>>> - * only in x86 world - hence on ARM it will be always disabled.
>>>> - * N.B. ARM guests are neither PV nor HVM nor PVHVM.
>>>> - * It's a bit like PVH but is different also (it's further towards the H
>>>> - * end of the spectrum than even PVH).
>>>> - */
>>>> -#include <xen/features.h>
>>>> -#define xen_pvh_domain() (xen_pv_domain() && \
>>>> -			  xen_feature(XENFEAT_auto_translated_physmap))
>>>> -#else
>>>>  #define xen_pvh_domain()	(0)
>>> Any reason you don't remove this, too (together with its last user in
>>> arch/x86/xen/grant-table.c) ?
>> grant-table.c is in fact one of the reasons: we will be using that code
>> for PVHv2 again so I kept it to avoid unnecessary code churn.
>>
>> Also, we want to have a nop definition of xen_pvh_domain() for
>> !CONFIG_XEN_PVH.
> Okay, could you mention this in the commit message, please?


Will do.

-boris