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

[Juergen Gross]

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?


Juergen