On 23.09.2021 17:25, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 23.09.21 17:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.09.2021 17:15, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 23.09.21 17:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.09.2021 16:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 07.09.21 12:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
This was effectively lost while dropping PVHv1 code. Move the function
and arrange for it to be called the same way as done in PV mode. Clearly
this then needs re-introducing the XENFEAT_mmu_pt_update_preserve_ad
check that was recently removed, as that's a PV-only feature.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
@@ -261,6 +261,18 @@ int xen_vcpu_setup(int cpu)
return ((per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) == NULL) ? -ENODEV : 0);
+void __init xen_banner(void)
+ unsigned version = HYPERVISOR_xen_version(XENVER_version, NULL);
+ struct xen_extraversion extra;
Please add a blank line here.
+ HYPERVISOR_xen_version(XENVER_extraversion, &extra);
+ pr_info("Booting paravirtualized kernel on %s\n", pv_info.name);
Is this correct? I don't think the kernel needs to be paravirtualized
with PVH (at least not to the same extend as for PV).
What else do you suggest the message to say? Simply drop
"paravirtualized"? To some extent it is applicable imo, further
qualified by pv_info.name. And that's how it apparently was with
The string could be selected depending on CONFIG_XEN_PV.
Hmm, now I'm confused: Doesn't this setting control whether the kernel
can run in PV mode? If so, that functionality being present should have
no effect on the functionality of the kernel when running in PVH mode.
So what you suggest would end up in misleading information imo.
Hmm, yes, I mixed "paravirtualized" with "capable to run
So the string should depend on xen_pv_domain().
But that's already expressed by pv_info.name then being "Xen PV".
Description: OpenPGP public key
Description: OpenPGP digital signature