Re: [RFC v1 4/8] x86/init: add linker table support

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/21/16 16:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> Basically, if the hardware is enumerable using standard PC mechanisms (PCI, ACPI) and doesn't need a special boot flow it should use type 0.
> 
> I can extend the documentation as part of this to be clear.
> 
> I will note though that this still leaves a gap on code which might
> want to access the question "are we in a virt environment, and if so
> on which one" in between really early boot and right before
> init_hypervisor_platform(). Or rather, given subarch can be used by
> Xen and lguest but not KVM it means KVM doesn't get to use it. It may
> not need it, but its also rather trivial to set up on qemu, and I have
> a patch for that if we wanted one for KVM. That would extend the
> definition of subarch a bit more, but as it stands today its use was
> rather limited. Heck, subharch_data is to this day unused.
> 

KVM is not a subarch, and Xen HVM isn't either; the subarch was meant to
be specifically to handle nonstandard boot entries; the CE4100 extension
was itself kind of a hack.

If you have a genuine need for a "hypervisor type" then that is a
separate thing and should be treated separately from subarch.  However,
you need to consider that some hypervisors can emulate other hypervisors
and you may have more than one hypervisor API available.

	-hpa